LECTURE XIX(THE SAME CONTINUED)—THE B PERSONALITY

Let us now return to C’s account of the shock which occurred at this time, while the B complex was periodically dominant. It was the cause of the final complete dissociation of personality and the eruption of the secondary personality B.

The shock I received was of an intensely emotional nature. It brought to me, suddenly, the realization that my position in life was entirely changed, that I was quite alone, and with this there came a feeling of helplessness and desolation beyond my powers of description. I felt, too, angry, frightened, insulted. For a few minutes these ideas flashed through my mind and then—all was changed. All the distressing ideas of the preceding moments left me, and I no longer resented what, a moment before, had caused me so much distress.I became the personality which we have since called“B.” I do not feel now that the episode was of a character that would have affected a person of a different nature, or even myself had I been in good health. Psychologically speaking, I suppose I was already in a somewhat disintegrated condition and therefore more susceptible. At any rate it did affect me.From the moment of that shock I was, literally, a different person.Even the episode itself now became of little or no importance to me; indeed I looked upon it rather as a lark and really enjoyed it, as I did, in this character, succeeding events.With the change to “B” there was no loss of memory as sometimes occurs under such conditions.It seems very curious to me that the effect of this shock was to change menot to the despondent, despairing mood of “A” which came later, but to the happy mood of “B.”

In describing the two personalities I shall sometimes have to refer to them by the letters A and B to avoid the constant repetition of “myself as A—myself as B.”

As B, I was, apparently, a perfectly normal person, as will be seen from the description which follows, except that I was ruled by the fixed idea that upon me, and me alone, depended the salvation, moral and physical, of a person who was almost a perfect stranger to me and who was the subject of a drug habit. I had known this person but a few weeks. This idea became an obsession; all else sank into insignificance beside it;nothingelse was of any consequence; I went to all lengths to help this person, doing things which, though quite right and proper, indeed imperative from my point of view as B, were unwise and unnecessary. I believed that I was the only one in the world who would stand by him; that every one else had given him up as hopeless and that his one chance lay in his belief in me.

The writer neglects here to say that it was not only as B that she had undertaken the “salvation” of the drug addict. As C she also shared in this solicitude and had begun the reformation. B only continued it but from different motives as later stated by C herself. B does not refer to it in her story apparently not taking it very seriously. Of course in my numerous interviews I heard an exhaustive account of the whole affair.

The marked change in health and strength for the better noted in those phases, during period II, when the personality was dominated by the B complex and mentioned in the last lecture was still more accentuated now in the B personality. C thus refers to it:

With the change of personality, which will be clearer as you read, there was also a complete change of physical conditions.Previouslyneurasthenic, I, as B, was perfectly well and strong and felt equal to anything in the way of physical exercise.

You will also remember that in the last lecture I spoke of certain minor traits which had been characteristic of C and which were markedly altered in an opposite direction under the dominance of the B complex and induced impulsive alterations of behavior. These changes were accentuated in the B personality from the very first as C goes on to describe.

The minor traits I have above mentioned were replaced by their opposites. A walk of three or four miles did not tire me at all; I tramped through the woods during the hottest days of summer, with nothing on my head, feeling no discomfort from the heat and no fatigue; I sat on the ground in the woods, hours at a time, not minding in the least the bugs and the mosquitoes; canoeing I was very fond of and felt no fear of the water. I also took long rides on the electric cars and found them perfectly delightful. These are small things but, as you see, it was a radical change and seems as strange to remember as the more important ones.

The change in the emotional and feeling tones, the former representing a different set of emotion-instincts, from those that were habitual, is illustrated in the following passage:

As B, I was light-hearted and happy and life seemed good to me; I wanted to live; my pulses beat fuller, my blood ran warmer through my veins than it ever had done before. I seemed more alive. Nothing is stranger to remember than the vigorous health of B. Never in my life was I so well, before or since. I felt muchyoungerand looked so, for the lines of care, anxiety, sorrow, and fatigue had faded from my face and the change in expression was remarked upon. I neglected my family and friends shamefully, writing short and unsatisfactory letters which left them in ignoranceof my health and plans; business affairs I washed my hands of entirely. I lost the formality and reserve which was one of my traits. My tastes, ideas, and points of view were completely changed.

I remained in this state for some weeks, enjoying life to the utmost in a way entirely foreign to my natural tastes and inclinations as described above, walking, boating, etc., living wholly out of doors; and also doing many irresponsible things which were of a nature to cause me much distress later.

Some of this might, perhaps, be ascribed to improved health though different from anything I had ever been before.[284]

A point of considerable significance is the youthfulness of this B phase, a trait which the writer C notes and which B in her account emphasizes. When later the case came under my observation this phenomenon was so noticeable that it arrested the attention.

It may be interesting to hear B’s description of the shock, more dramatically told than C’s, and of the changes above mentioned of the personality (health, emotional tones, conduct, and youthfulness) immediately following.

It runs as follows:

At this time there came to C a third shock of a strongly emotional nature, giving rise to events which I callperiod III. It brought to her the realization of a fact of which she had been unconscious; she had never thought of the possibility of such a thing and she was startled, frightened, angry, all in a flash—and I was there. James, in explaining “Sudden Religious Conversion,” speaks of a “flowering of the subconscious,”—well, I “flowered,” and C disappeared somewhere;the B complex had become a personalityand I lived a lifeof my own choosing.[285]How slowly this complex gathered form in this case may be seen from the fact that it was five years from the time of the beginning of her husband’s illness before I came as a personality.

Now, when I came as a personality, I felt much younger than C; my ideas of what constituted pleasure were more like those of a girl of twenty—as C was when she received the first shock (period I). But in character, points of view, tastes, emotions, in everything that goes to make up personality I was quite different from anything C had ever been; also in health. I was strong and vigorous, taking long walks and feeling no fatigue. I was also very happy. Life seemed so good to me; everything was so beautiful; the outdoor world looked to me as it does to one who has been for months shut in through illness. I loved the trees, the sky, and the wind; butI did not love people. I felt no care or responsibility—that is why I was so happy. I remained the only personality for aboutone month, when there came the fourth emotional shock producingperiod IV.

These accounts need further explanation. C remarks: “It seems very curious to me that the effect of this shock was to change me not to the despondent, despairing mood of A, which came later, but to the happy mood of B.” A consideration of the facts in more detail renders the reason obvious. It must be kept in mind that the dominant feature of the B mood or personality was the B complex, and the nucleus of this system of ideas was the “rebellion” I have described. This rebellion again had its first beginnings 19 years before (period I). We have traced it through the succeeding years, with its later accretions, growingand expanding in intensity and extent, like a political insurrection, until it had taken into itself a large field of ideas and became the B complex. Bear in mind here that the primitive germinal first rebellion was the reaction to an emotional shock in which fright and disgust as elements occurred plus the X affect to which they were a defense reaction. Now the second shock which was experienced at the third period was fundamentally the same in nature as that of the first period. It gave rise to the sameaffect, X, and mental awakening, to the same kind of realization of her situation, and the reaction, particularly to the affect, was the same rebellion.But the rebellion had meantime, in the years that had passed, grown into the B complex, and so it was this B constellation of ideas which erupted into consciousness and dominated the whole field of personality.Though the second shock awoke the same affect as did the original shock, it was consciously mild and probably for the most part subconscious, being repressed and submerged by the reacting emotions of fear and anger, which latter blazed forth. And in the reaction there were, also, the emotions of disgust and self-assertion and the vengeful emotion.

With such emotions, particularly anger anddisgust,disgust,this affect was in conflict as was also fear. When two primary emotions are in conflict both cannot live; one will be suppressed. Fear will be suppressed by an outburst of blazing anger, and anger cannot exist when an overwhelming fear is excited. One will replace the other. So the mild X affect and fear were immediately repressed by anger, disgust and the compound vengefulemotion, the three not in any way conflicting with one another but as allies reinforcing each other in the attack.

Consequently from the B personality, which sprang to life as the reaction to the X affect, this affect itself, was completely repressed and dissociated, so that this personalityis entirely without thisand other traits of the C personality. Likewise, although this is not so easy to determine, owing to the impossibility of reproducing all conditions under which a given individual would react normally to any given emotion,fearandtender feeling(love) seem to have been dissociated from the B personality. It is certainly true that B experienced no fear and other emotions with which C habitually reacted to certain situations. This question of the involvement of the emotions in dissociation will be discussed in another place.

As to the X affect, it is of some significance that later, after the development of the third personality, A, which alternated with B, this personality retained this affect (as well as fear and others lost to B) and the awakening of this affect in A would regularly change this personality to B; that is, repress the A personality and awaken B. Many times other emotions, particularly anxiety (fear), would have the same effect, but the affect in question would always induce the change, apparently as a defense reaction.

From one point of view it may be maintained that all this emotional reaction, called “shock,” (that primarily called into being the B personality) was a defense reaction. It certainly was, as any outburst ofanger may be a defense reaction, as it is in the bull in the ring of a Spanish bull-fight. Under other conditions anger as an element in the pugnacity instinct may, like other emotional impulses, be an attacking reaction.

But labelling with names does not give us any insight into the mechanism of a reaction any more than labelling a machine an automobile gives us any idea of its mechanism. It gives only a teleological meaning to the machine.

What is a fruitful question, however, is whether the“shock”“shock”was a defense to an external aggression or to the urge of an unacceptable subconsciouswishcontaining the repressed affect X. Some willwishto make this latter interpretation. It is entirely incompatible, however, with the fact that the same conflict and “shock” had previously occurred under conditions when, even if there had been such a wish, it could not have been unacceptable, as there was no reason therefor, but on the contrary it would have been her duty to have fulfilled it. It is useless in this case to work that trumpery affect business in this way.

Furthermore, as a matter of experience, we find from a study of cases of multiple personality that after two independent systems of ideas have been formed, almost any emotional shock is liable to cause the displacement of one system and the substitution of the other system. This was observed over and over again in the case of Miss Beauchamp,[286]as it was in this case. Why it should be so is not always obvious at the time of any given occurrence. That there is a specific psychologicalreason and dynamic mechanism we cannot doubt. Undoubtedly if we could probe sufficiently extensively into the unconscious in each instance we should find that subtile associations in the substituted systems had been struck and that the change was thereby determined. When the associated element is organized with strong emotions the discharge of the emotion more easily represses and dissociates the rival conflicting systems. This gives the appearance that it was the emotion alone, as an isolated factor, which induced the alternation of personality.

What happened then when the change of personality took place was this: The acquired B complex, which had been developing in content and conative intensity, surged up as a reaction from the unconscious (where it had been conserved during the normal mood in a dormant condition), came into conflict with the systems of the normal self and repressed and replaced this previously dominating side of her nature. By this dissociation this side was put out of commission so to speak. In turn it remained dormant, of course, conserved as unconscious neurograms, ready to beresurrectedunder favoring conditions by appropriate stimuli.

But in the formation of the B personality there was more than this; otherwise there would not have been generated a personality; the alteration would have been limited to the incursion into the field of consciousness only of the B complex as had so often happened before. On the one hand a larger synthesis took place. The B complex dragged out of the storehouse of theunconscious the acquired and conserved ideas and other experiences of childhood and girlhood that had an associative relation to the system which formed the B complex. In this respect it was areversionto the earlier period of life.

On the other hand, there was, as we shall see, a dissociation and suppression of certaininnatedispositions, instincts and sentiments belonging to normal personality that were in conflict with the B phase. Specifically the most important of these were, the instinct of self-abasement and its corresponding self-regarding sentiment, the “tender emotion” (affection) and its parental instinct (McDougall), the X affect and its instinct, fear (instinct of flight) and vengeful emotion.

The emotions and their instincts and the innate dispositions, appetites and tendencies, being psycho-physiological arrangements inborn in the organism and not acquired, are the very foundations of human personality. Without a recognition of them and without assigning to them their proper parts and due weight in determining mental traits and behavior alterations of personality cannot be explained or understood.[287]

The justification for the interpretation I have given of the genesis of the B personality is found in an analysis of its manifested characteristics. In the first place this B phase by common consent, even in the opinion of those who were in entire ignorance of what had psychologically occurred—i.e., the alteration of personality,—was much younger in character than the mature C. She appeared to be a young girl of 18 or 19 years of age. Her friends spoke of her, when remarking on her improved health, as “being as she used to be.” She looked younger.[288]As I myself observed her on, I might almost say, hundreds of occasions, the contrast between the actual age of the subject and the apparent age of B as indicated by expressions of face, the vivacious mannerisms, the girlish attitude of mind, points of view, tastes, etc., was remarkable.

All this together with the lack of appreciation of many of the responsibilities of life and of the duties and conditions which pertain to motherhood, social relations and conventions, the loss of sentiments acquired after marriage, etc., made up a picture of youth that wasunmistakable. The contrast between the mature C and the girlish B became almost dramatic when the change of personality took place suddenly as it later frequently did in my presence.

When we come to analyze the traits which gave this impression of youth we see that it was justified. One side of C’s character, as we have seen, was a love of happiness and the pleasures which induce the joy of life. This side was dominant in B; but thekindof pleasure which appealed to B was not only that which appeals to youth but that which had particularly appealed to the subject when a young girl. It was “tramping through the woods in the hottest days of summer,” canoeing and rowing in boats, walking, riding in electric cars—in fact, the out-door life that appealed to her most strongly and was her greatest enjoyment. “Oh, wouldn’t I just love to tramp through the woods or sail off over the waves, or anything exciting,” she wrote. Such of these things as she had been able when a little girl to indulge in she then enjoyed. As a child and during girlhood she liked camping out and sailing, but as she grew older, say about sixteen or eighteen, she became afraid of the water and row boats. Canoeing she had never done before her marriage and then was afraid of it.

We have seen that childhood’s experiences are largely conserved, when not modified by the growth of personality, in the unconscious (neurographic residua) although they may never come to the surface of consciousness unless resurrected by some device or accident; and repression tends to conserve them as unitarycomplexes maintaining their own urges. Accordingly in the case of B everything points to the conclusion that the repressed, conserved sentiments with their organized emotions and feelings, of the pleasure of childhood and adolescent life, sentiments by which the young girl was governed,erupted into consciousness. The play-instinct, or innate disposition, long repressed, particularly was revived and played a large part in determining behavior. The B personality was thus areversionto an early period of life. The rearrangement of the play-instinct and other innate dispositions will be more conveniently discussed later in connection and contrast with the A personality.

Of course there is no sharp line of division between different periods of life, one running into the other, and the ideas, sentiments, desires, habits, etc., of one period may continue more or less unchanged well into another and beyond. Or, as usually happens, they may be modified by the successive experiences of life. So obviously we cannot ascribe with precision to a past definite age traits of character of the kind we are considering. Such traits belong to the evolutional development of the individual; they tend to become modified by the clash with new experiences, or, when incompatible with the knowledge and habits acquired by new experiences, to become repressed—when not incompatible they may persist late into adult life. So some of these traits have persisted as a side to, or as elements in the character of B. C. A. into her present life; some, however, have been modified or repressed into the unconscious. As age advances, as the childpasses into adolescence and then into maturity, there comes wider knowledge of the facts of the environment, of its dangers and other relations, a more true and complete conception of the meaning of life, a more extensive world view, and a recognition and assumption of duties, cares, and responsibilities. And all these acquisitions tend to form a conscious organism with new sentiments which give new acquired reactions to stimuli in place of the old reactions (traits and other conative tendencies). Activities, for example, which once received their impulses from play dispositions are later inhibited by sentiments invested with the instinct of fear (flight). So B. C. A. acquired a fear of the water (boats, canoeing) and a dislike of bugs and mosquitoes and electric cars. Why these changes in her mental reactions took place we cannot say without making a more extensive search into the experiences of her past life, and the information when acquired would hardly repay the time and labor of the inquiry. We cannot say, for example, why she has disliked electric cars without resurrecting the memories of past experiences pertaining to them and other associated ideas. Perhaps the dislike arose simply out of the noise and resulting discomfort and headaches; or it may have had a more subtile cause in associated ideas of danger which would not appeal to a girl, or possibly such objects may more subtilely still be the symbolic expression of some unconscious process. It does not bear upon our present problem. (The dislike of mosquitoes and bugs very probably arose from having been bitten and poisoned badly by them when a child.)

There were certain other youthful traits and tastes in B which are worth mentioning. This personality was extravagant in money matters. “She,” the personality A wrote, “spends money as I used to, and will not acknowledge the necessity of economizing.” That is to say, the regulation of the household and personal expenses, according to the requirements of business sense, and proper appreciation of the financial management was scarcely recognized by B who desired to spend money as B. C. A. had done as a girl, before being initiated into the responsibilities of domestic management. Like such a girl, to the discomforture of the other personality, she spent money as if all were pin money, without appreciation of making ends meet in the management of the household.

Another and what will seem a strange peculiarity of B was the feeling that she was not the mother of her child. “I am not his mother,” she would say. “He is not my son”—“Inever was married.” “I know all her experiences,” she wrote me in a letter, “but they areherexperiences notmine. Why!Iwas never married, Dr. Prince, and I am not Willie’s mother. All those experiences belong to A. I know shehadthem, but then, so do you. The only difference is that I know exactly what she thought about them.” Indeed she carried this so far as to entirely neglect the responsibility of looking after his life. This was true also of the time when B. C. A. was ruled by the B complex before the change to the B personality. On one such occasion for example, she allowed this young boy to take a long journey of many hundred miles through the west, roughingit in the woods and canoes, without a care or anxious thought on her part during the whole time he was gone. All the arrangements were made by others while she herself did not even go to the station to see him off. Previously she had always felt the greatest motherly solicitude for the boy, even foolishly devoted to him, and could not bear to be parted from him even to accompany her husband on a journey.

This peculiar trait is easily understood on the theory that rebellious B was largely a systematized resurrection of pre-marital complexes but with a dissociation of the tender emotion (parental instinct). I have already pointed out that B regarded the “rebellious” complexes as herself, but not the other ideas of B. C. A. In referring to the former, as I have said, she used the word I, saying, I thought so and so, but she did not use such expressions regarding the other systems of B. C. A.’s thought after the genesis of these rebellious complexes. Likewise she regarded as her own the earlier youthful experiences before dissociation occurred. In the constellation of her complexes none of the experiences of maternity (which occurred after the development of the rebellious complex) were synthesized, any more than the sentiments and other conflicting thoughts of the A phase. Even in the embryonic contrary impulses of the B complex, it will be remembered, there were dislikes to “fuss” over the baby conflicting with the maternal instinct. She never, therefore, felt that motherhood was a part of her own experience. And so herconception of selfin its content differed materially from that of C and A,in that it contained references to entirely different experiences, and, therefore, included entirely different images and feelings. And it was organized with a self-regarding sentiment in which the instinct of self-assertion predominated instead of that of self-abasement.

I said that the parental instinct with the emotion of tender feeling was dissociated. This absence of tender emotion (affection) was also manifested in her attitude towards the different members of her family and her friends. As a girl she was markedly affectionate just as A and later C was, but as B she had lost this trait. She neglected her family most shockingly, in a way that showed complete absence of the impulses that come from tender feeling, and without the slightest compunction or recognition of the fact that she was wanting in affection. I might give numerous specific instances of this but refrain from doing so for obvious reasons.[289]B liked people but for other reasons thanthose which depend on personal affection. This absence, then, of the tender emotion with its impulses was the second factor in determining the feeling that B had of not being the mother of her child. It also, of course, prevented the building up a new sentiment of maternal affection through experience. All this is in conformity with our interpretation.

The way other instincts and innate dispositions were affected will be better described in connection with the A personality for contrast.

Another peculiarity of B was the change in literary taste. The lighter reading in which B found pleasure contrasted strongly with the literature dealing with the deeper problems of life that appealed to A. This difference has been touched upon by C in her account. It would take us too far afield to enter into the psychological reasons for it.

It remains to point out that the reactions of the personality in accordance with the new synthesis were intensified and became the sole reactions by the fact of the dissociation of those systems of ideas which represented the wider world view and which were organized with instincts and innate dispositions now inhibited. Those systems were the outcome of the cares, anxieties, responsibilities, and sorrows of later life. All these, which were acquired and had their origin at a comparatively late period, had subsided into the unconscious and ceased to influence the conscious life and give rise to their corresponding reactions. The emotions and sentiments of anxiety, remorse, self-reproach and despair, so conspicuous in the A phase,were completely dissociated from the B phase and formed no part of it. Though there was no amnesia for them as past experiences they were dissociated in the sense that they did not take part as psycho-physiological dispositions in the personality. They could be voluntarily recalled in an intellectual way as memories, but like many memories they had lost their emotional tones and were not awakened by any contemplated or actual line of conduct. Not entering the new B synthesis there was no clash by which the reactions might be modified. The sole reactions were, therefore, those of the B synthesis and were mostly those of pleasure and joy. You must not overlook the fact, however, that the dissociated elements of personality were still conserved and, as we shall see, capable of being resurrected and thereby taking part in the reproduction of the original personality, or of forming by themselves another dissociated one.

Thetemperamentof the B personality is in accord with the conception of a modified reversion to the conserved unconscious personality of early life. B. C. A. “was naturally very light-hearted, happy, buoyant.” Later when going through the stress and strain of her husband’s illness, and later still after becoming neurasthenic, she became apprehensive and given to self-reproaches, worry, and depression. She was racked by emotions of an anxious depressing kind. All this was enormously accentuated in the secondary personality A, (to be presently described) whom in banter I used to call “Mrs. Gummidge.” Now B reverted in temperament to the earlier period; she was free from depression;“had more courage, was light-hearted, merry; conditions did not seem so dreadful as they did to A,” and she “took things as they were”; “this was the way she used to be.”

If I may anticipate a little the development of the A personality, a passage or two from letters will show this difference in temperament as manifested by the emotions. B wrote, “A is nearly crazy about those papers. She simply ‘tears her hair’ and groans, and then, presto! change! and I am here.” Again in a note to her other self (A) she writes: “I suppose you have a ‘deep-horror-then-my-vitals-froze’ expression on your face now. Really, you suffer more to the square inch than any one I ever knew.” Although it is hardly fair to ascribe these emotional traits of A—a disintegrated personality—to the normal C, still they were and are at times noticeable in C as moods, or when under stress and strain. (C of course has pleasant affects and joyous moods as well.) B on the other hand was a perfect stranger to such feelings; she did not know the meaning of them; they were completely dissociated from her ideas. B’s sole emotions were those of pleasure and exaltation; C’s emotions included unpleasant and depressing ones as well, while A’s stock was made up almost entirely of the latter. This dissociation of unpleasant and depressing emotions from B is well manifested by her memories. When C (or A) recalled (and it is still true) an unpleasant experience the memory was accompanied by the original emotion in its full intensity. She lived over again the original experience and manifested all the feeling in the expressionof her face and in gesture. But when B recalled this same experience of C (or A) she simple remembered it intellectually as a fact, without the feeling tone. In fact she would recite a painful fact of C’s experience with a gaiety of tone that betokened enjoyment at the other self’s expense. The same phenomenon was still more striking in B as a co-conscious personality.[290]As a co-consciousness she always insisted that while she knew C’s (and A’s) thoughts she did not feel her emotions. “You see I know all that A thinks but I do notfeelher emotions; she is all emotion,” she wrote. This she insisted upon again and again. She only knew what the other personalities felt by the way they acted. Similarly the affect which was the cause of the “rebellion” was dissociated from B. This same phenomenon was observed in the case of Miss Beauchamp. Sally as a co-consciousness knew the thoughts of the personal consciousness (B I or B IV) but she was not aware of the feelings that accompanied the thoughts; the feelings she could only guess from the actions of the principal personality, and as an alternating personality Sally likewise was entirely devoid of certain emotions which were strongly accentuated in the other personalities.[291]This dissociation of affects from B helps us to understand the difference in the reactions of B, C, and A to the same stimuli.

284. The same as when dominated by the B complex but in a more extreme way. (M. P.)

285. That is, the remainder of the C complex subsided into the “unconscious,” where, of course, its experiences were conserved. They could be recalled as a memory by B. As a system of ideas the B complex had been “flowering” for five years. (M. P.)

286. SeeJournal Abnormal Psychology, 1920, Nos. 2 and 3.

287. The science of human personality is becoming a special branch of psychology and is based upon the recognition and study of the innate psycho-physiological systems of which a few are mentioned here. Of the most recent works on this subject, those of Alexander F. Shand (The Foundations of Character) and William McDougall (Social Psychology) are the most important contributions. They are based on the study of normal behavior. Abnormal alterations, such as are met with in the psychoses and multiple personality, will prove to be a more fruitful field for study and will provide more valuable contributions to our knowledge of normal mechanisms, just as the pathology of the nervous system has done for our knowledge of its anatomy and physiology. Disease dissects the mind far better than can introspection or observation.

288. In a letter written in the phase A to me she writes: “B seems to revert to the time before all the sorrow and trouble. She writes in the diary [kept at my direction by the different personalities] as I used to feel. She ‘won’t be unhappy;’ she ‘will have a good time,’ etc. She seems younger than I, someway. I find that my friends often think me more ‘like myself,’ when B is here; she also spends money as I used to and will not acknowledge the necessity of economizing....” In another letter she writes: “Then came the time when I was wholly B. Everything but my own pleasure was cast to the wind. I felt and acted like a girl of 18, and I know that Ilookedyears younger than I do now.”

289. C writes: “To me this point of the affections is one of the most interesting and curious. As a child and young girl I was affectionate, shy, proud, and reserved—everything that B was not. I positively never had in me any of these traits that B exhibited during those weeks ... except gaiety.”This statement, when analyzed, is in entire agreement with the results of our study. The absence of affection is what would be expected from the loss of the primary emotion “tender feeling,” the affective element in the parental instinct. Shyness is determined by the instinct of self-abasement which was dissociated from B. Likewise with the self-regarding sentiment of pride in one of its varieties, self-respect. According to McDougall this comprises two instincts: that of self-assertion with its emotion of elation, and that of self-abasement with its emotion of subjection. The latter instinct we have seen reason to conclude was inhibited in B. Hence, on this theory of pride, this sentiment was lost.

This statement, when analyzed, is in entire agreement with the results of our study. The absence of affection is what would be expected from the loss of the primary emotion “tender feeling,” the affective element in the parental instinct. Shyness is determined by the instinct of self-abasement which was dissociated from B. Likewise with the self-regarding sentiment of pride in one of its varieties, self-respect. According to McDougall this comprises two instincts: that of self-assertion with its emotion of elation, and that of self-abasement with its emotion of subjection. The latter instinct we have seen reason to conclude was inhibited in B. Hence, on this theory of pride, this sentiment was lost.

290. B later became co-conscious with the other personalities as well as alternating.

291. “Miss Beauchamp,” etc.;Jour. Abn. Psychol., Vol. XV, p. 80.

Back to Index Next