Core Emotional Energy: Labeling the Negativity-Positivity Spectrum (3)

This blog post is about levels of core emotional energy, and about the definition of those levels. Also discussed is a one-dimensional system for evaluating or “typing” human character and behavior, for the purpose of practical prediction, explanation, and understanding. It also touches upon the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

This is the third part in a mini-series of blog posts where I describe some of the thinking that I am currently engaged in, in regard to the development of the idea of the Core Emotional Energy and its “levels”.

The previous posts in this mini-series are here: Labeling the NP Spectrum (Part 1) and Labeling the NP Spectrum (Part 2).

CEE: A Simple Character Assessment Tool

I am not sure that I have said this before in any of my blog entries in this series, so I will state it explicitly here: I am thinking of the term “Core Emotional Energy” as a simple “typing tool” or “assessment tool” for the evaluation of human personality and behavior.

One of the main features, I think, is that this “Core Emotional Energy” system is a “typing tool” that is one-dimensional. Thus, it is not a multi-variable system, as for example the Myers-Briggs type indicator is. So while the Myers-Briggs system has four “variables” or four “parts” in its groupings (as in “INTJ” or “ESFP”), my system only has one (“C” as in “core emotional energy”, or, expressed in a more precise fashion, the “intensity”, or frequency, of the “core emotional energy”.

Why a Simple, One-Dimensional System? (1)

The almost obvious objection to a one-dimensional system like this might be the following. How in the whole world can an incredibly complex thing like the personality of a human being be described with only one variable, such as the “Core Emotional Energy”? Such a theory must be extremely simplistic, and, ultimately, also provide misleading and unhelpful results, if one even can call them “results”.

My response would simply be that there seem to be no correlation, in terms of theories in the sciences, between “correctness” and “number of variables”. To my knowledge, there is nothing preventing anyone from presenting, and using, theories with less variables.

The only criterion that one has to worry about is whether the theory has any predictive power, or not. If the theory can predict certain outcomes, then it needs to be taken seriously (by those who are in that particular field of interest) .

In fact, one could even argue that Occam’s razor would be applicable here. I mean, if you have variables that are not relevant in terms of causal explanation, would not a (traditional) scientist then just use Occam’s principle to ignore those variables, and instead provide a simpler, more “aesthetically pleasing” equation, providing that it delivers the same, or better, results?

Of course, I am not really using Occam’s (or Ockham’s) razor here. For I am well aware of the fact that this so-called “principle” is merely a theory; and, along with most theories of any kind, is not really proven, neither in principle nor in practice.

So I think it only would detract from my presentation if I would try to use it (in regard to the theories put forth by either Myers-Briggs or the Jungian ideas it is based on). For that would perhaps indicate either that I thought that Occam’s principle was proven (which I don’t think it is), or that I thought it was correct (which I also don’t think it is).

Why a Simple, One-Dimensional System? (2)

But even if I don’t use Occam here, I could still say that there seems to be rather little scientific evidence to support the claim that the Myers-Briggs system factually is predictive.

And the fact that the Myers-Briggs system is so “popular” is also, of course, a no-go: it’s just the argumentum ad populum — the argumentation fallacy of taking what’s popular, or even what’s traditional, as a reason for thinking it is good (or true).

This is, of course, extra problematic (from a “scientific perspective”, that is) if such popularity is extended to non-authorities in the particular subject. So when I said “popular” above, I meant “ordinary people”. For it seems that the Myers-Briggs system is used by many non-specialists in psychology, particularly in circumstances involving “dating” and “relationships”, where personal chemistry and psychological compatibility are in focus.

The issue to which I am referring here when I am saying “extra problematic” is simply the issue of predictability. For whether a theory can provide robust predictions of the future, or not, is usually only seriously contemplated by scientists, not others. So-called “ordinary” people may not always be so strict and observant in these matters.

Scale of Emotional ‘Levels’: Negative vs Positive (1)

So let us start thinking about the scale of the Core Emotional Energy and its “levels”. What are these “levels”? And where shall we put them?

First of all, as I have said previously, the Core Emotional Energy uses frequency as its unit, as opposed to wavelength (see yesterday’s post). And since we know from our previous discussions, the spectrum of Core Emotional Energy is describing also the level of negativity or positivity (of a certain individual).

So the most natural thing to do, I think, would be to simply divide the whole Core Emotional Energy spectrum into two (equally large) parts. Thus, if the CEE is drawn along a horizontal x-axis, the left half of it would be dedicated to “levels of negativity”, and the right half of it would be dedicated “levels of positivity”.

However, we have to keep in mind that the CEE is a frequency, and that it is never 0 or negative. So even though the temptation might be there to have an origo (zero-point) and have an arrow going to the left as well, and then label the left half (the area in in red) as “levels of negativity”, I will not be doing that.

The good thing about this decision is then also that we get one and only one “main direction”: the direction in which the student of Law of Attraction is meant to progress in. So even if he or she is currently in a negative state of mind, the suggested “project” for him or her is to try to move to the right in the diagram.

Therefore, if we are arranging such a diagram in the horizontal direction, we might have something like this:

Another feature of this type of diagram is the dotted line. For even if we do not have a formal origo in place in this diagram, we still can use a “half-way to happiness” reference line. This reference line represents an “equilibrium point”, where there is an equal amount of negativity and positivity present in the student’s emotional energy.

This is the point which I call “full self-acceptance”. More about that topic (including several graphs) can be found in my article on developing a better definition of ‘self-acceptance’ in psychology.

Scale of Emotional ‘Levels’: Negative vs Positive (2)

Alternatively, if the Core Emotional Energy were to be depicted instead along a vertical y-axis, the lower half would be dedicated to levels of negativity, while the upper half would be dedicated to levels of positivity.

To put the negativity on the lower half seems natural, since the y-axis normally is thought of as “increasing” or “progressing” when we go upwards. So then we would naturally have the positivity on the upper half of the diagram.

Just as in the case of the horizontal diagram, I have here also chosen to avoid any actual labeling of the negative half, in order to more clearly point out that the only suggested direction in which to move one’s emotional energy is upwards, toward the positive. I am also keeping the idea of a dotted line, for I think it works, both visually and in terms of my definition of the word “self-acceptance”.

In any case, I think that’s all for today. Tomorrow, I will be focusing on subdivisions, that is, how I am going to subdivide the “positivity half” and the “negativity half”, so that it will be really useful.

Chris Bocay

---