50 Psychology Classics (20 page)

Neuroticism is an indicator of how upset, nervous, worried, anxious, or stressed we have a tendency to be.

Scoring high on this dimension does not mean that people are neurotic, only that they have the sort of brain that predisposes them to neuroses. A low score indicates that they are more emotionally stable.

The neurotically minded over-respond to stimuli, while those who are not are calmer and can put things into perspective.

Neurotically minded introverts, in an effort to control the stimulation that comes into their minds, are susceptible to phobias and panic attacks. Neurotically minded extraverts tend to undervalue the impact of life events, and may develop neuroses of denial or repression.

Though Eysenck's work on the biological basis of personality has been frequently criticized, it has also been increasingly validated by research. As Steven Pinker notes in
The Blank Slate
, studies of identical twins raised apart have demonstrated that only a small portion of personality is due to socialization. The rest is shaped by genetics.

There are now many other models of personality type—including the commonly used five-factor model of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness—but Eysenck was the first to make the effort toward a statistical way of understanding the issue. It is unlikely that personality will ever be an exact science, but his work laid a foundation for better understanding of people that did not rely on mere social observation or folk wisdom.

As both a serious scientist and a writer of popular psychology books, Eysenck contributed greatly to increased public understanding of psychological issues. In the 1950s he made a celebrated attack on the scientific validity of psychoanalysis, stating that there was no evidence at all that it helped cure patients' neuroses—and in the process he helped make psychotherapy more scientifically accountable and focused.

Eysenck was also known as an intelligence researcher who, going against the ethos of social conditioning, maintained that intelligence levels were largely heritable and genetic. His 1971 book
Race, Intelligence and Education
, which laid out evidence of IQ differences according to racial type, led to demonstrations and Eysenck's famously being punched in the face at a university lecture. He also delved into astrology, gave some support to paranormal phenomena, suggested that smoking-related cancer was linked to personality, and presented evidence that some people had a biological disposition to be criminals.

Despite such controversies, toward the end of his life the American Psychological Society made Eysenck a William James Fellow for a lifetime of distinguished contribution to psychological science.

Born in Germany in 1916, after his parents' divorce Hans Jürgen Eysenck was brought up by his grandmother
.

As a young man he opposed the Nazi regime and left Germany for good. He settled in England, completing his PhD in psychology at the University of London in 1940. During the Second World War he worked at Mill Hill emergency hospital as a psychiatrist, and from 1945–50 was a psychologist at the Maudsley Hospital. He also established and became director of the psychology department at the University of London's Institute of Psychiatry, a post he held until 1983
.

Eysenck died in 1997
.

“Though we may be skilled and successful in other parts of our lives, with these people we feel bewildered, powerless. They've got us wrapped around their little fingers.”

“They swathe us in a comforting intimacy when they get what they want, but they frequently wind up threatening us in order to get their way, or burying us under a load of guilt and self-reproach when they don't.”

“Perhaps worst of all, every time we capitulate to emotional blackmail, we lose contact with our integrity, the inner compass that helps us determine what our values and behavior should be.”

In a nutshell

We maintain our integrity only by withstanding other people's controlling behavior.

In a similar vein
Nathaniel Branden
The Psychology of Self-Esteem
(p 42)
Anna Freud
The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence
(p 104)
John M. Gottman
The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work
(p 136)
Karen Horney
Our Inner Conflicts
(p 156)

If you have ever done something you did not want to, but felt you had to in order to preserve a relationship, this book is for you. It is not until you read Susan Forward's bestselling
Emotional Blackmail: When the People in Your Life Use Fear, Obligation, and Guilt to Manipulate You
that you realize how pervasive emotional blackmail may be.

The actual playing out of blackmail, while worrying on its own, is only indicative of deeper issues in both the blackmailer and the blackmailed. Why does one person feel that threat or intimidation is the only way to get what they want? Why do their victims allow themselves to be victimized?

Most of us have had someone in our lives—be it a spouse, child, or workmate—whom we placate because we don't want to cause trouble in the relationship. Or we may be in constant open conflict with them because we resent the pressure to do something we know is not right for us.

An emotional blackmailer can be summed up by the one basic threat of “If you do not do what I want you to, you will suffer.” Because they know us well, they use their knowledge of our vulnerabilities to gain our compliance. In a normal relationship there is a give-and-take balance in which we get what we want some of the time, the other person getting what they want at other times. However, the emotional blackmailer does not really care if we are happy as long as they get what
they
want.

Blackmailers create a “FOG” of “Fear, Obligation, and Guilt,” which makes it sometimes difficult to see how we are actually being treated. When fear and guilt are present, it often seems as if
we
are the problem, not the one who is trying to blackmail us. If a spouse or workmate or friend or relative does some of the following, Forward warns, we are a potential target of blackmail:

Threaten to make things difficult if we don't go along with them, including ending the relationship.

Imply that their misery is the result of our noncompliance.

Make big promises if we agree to do something, which don't ever materialize.

Ignore or discount our thoughts and feelings on something.