DSM (II)

I believe that, beyond our ethical, formal and intellectual expression, each of us expresses ourselves profoundly through our own "Personality", understood as a mix of:

• genetics,
• temporary biological condition,
• territorial culture,
• passive pedagogical experience of child,
• traumas,

factors, all these, that induce us to act automatically, reducing our capacity for self-determination and the exercise of free will: these are insidious variables also because they are not always consciously perceived by the subject.

Our "Personality" manifests itself not only but, certainly, above all in interpersonal relationships.

In fact, if, by mere study hypothesis, we could observe from a hypothetical keyhole, locked in a room and busy with their things, a series of subjects each representative of a specific type of Personality (a Narcissist, a Schizoid, a Borderline , an Avoidant, a Paranoid, etc.), only a psychologically expert observer could effectively notice some rare noteworthy differences between all of them.

That is, each of us expresses our own "Personality";

above all in external relationships and with what is outside of oneself, rather than in the internal relationship with oneself,

in external relationships, above all in relationships with subjects, rather than in those with objects,

in relationships with subjects, especially in non-formal relationships rather than in formal ones,

in non-formal intersubjective relationships, above all in the most non-formal ones, and, therefore, above all in sentimental ones (Partners) and, descending, in emotional ones (relatives) and even more so in emotional ones (friendships, artistic experiences , sports, etc.).

Well, to try to understand each Personality I believe there are 3 factors to take into consideration:

• the complex of skills and incompetences of the subject: there are subjects who seem to lack innate skills from a social and emotional-affective-sentimental point of view,
• the rigidity of the subject's conduct: there are subjects who seem to mechanically reiterate the same conduct, as if they never learned from their mistakes or as if it was not a priority for them to learn from their mistakes,
• the complex of the subject's needs: there are subjects who seem to have unconventional needs as priority, fundamental and indispensable needs, marginalizing or even nullifying the classic fundamental social and emotional-affective-sentimental needs.