Every action and movement we make in life reflects our perception of our own strength and abilities. From the very beginning, we have a clear understanding of the difficulties or feasibility of our actions in any situation.
In other words, I believe that our behavior stems from our beliefs. Do not be surprised by this, because our senses do not perceive actual facts, but rather subjective images of them, in other words, reflections of the external world.
When conducting psychological research, do not forget the words of Séneca. How we interpret significant facts depends on our lifestyle. Only when faced with direct and conflicting evidence will we be willing to adjust our perception of the facts in the details of our direct experience, allowing causality to influence our judgment without changing our worldview.
In fact, whether a person sees a venomous snake approaching as a real venomous snake or simply believes it to be one, the effect on him is the same. A spoiled child will feel anxious when their mother leaves because they fear thieves, regardless of whether there are actually thieves present. Even after proving to him that there are no thieves, he will still feel afraid.
People with agoraphobia are afraid to go out on the streets because they feel like the ground is shaking. Even when they are not ill, if the ground actually shakes, their behavior remains the same... These people sometimes act according to their beliefs, and if their beliefs are not problematic, their actions can be considered correct from an objective perspective.
Let's take the example of a 36-year-old lawyer. He has completely lost interest in his work. His career is not going well, and he believes it is because he cannot make a good impression on his clients. He always feels uncomfortable socializing with people, especially girls, and becomes very shy.
He reluctantly, or even disgustingly, got married and divorced within a year. Now he lives with his parents and leads a reclusive life, with most of his living expenses being covered by his parents. He is an only child. His mother dotes on him excessively and is always with him. She has convinced both him and his father that one day he will become an extraordinary person.
This child has always had such expectations for himself. He excels academically, which seems to prove his beliefs. Most spoiled children cannot say no to anything. Like many children, he developed a habit of masturbation, which he cannot break free from, and soon became the laughingstock of the girls at school. As a result, he completely avoids interacting with them, but imagines that he will achieve great success in love and marriage. However, he only feels attracted to his mother, and his mother is completely under his control. He often associates sexual fantasies with his mother.
From this case, it is clear that the so-called Oedipus complex is not a "fundamental fact," but rather the result of indulgence, malice, and unnaturalness from the mother. This can be seen more clearly when this vain boy or young man feels betrayed by girls, lacks sufficient social interests to interact with others, and cannot develop them.
Shortly before completing his studies, when faced with the issue of making a living independently, the patient developed depression, which made him retreat once again. Like many spoiled children, he has always been timid and afraid of facing strangers. The same applies to his relationships with men or women. At the same time, he is also afraid to face his career, a situation that has persisted until now. The above description omits many other accompanying facts, but I think it is sufficient.
One thing is clear: this person has never changed throughout his life. He always wants to stand out, but when he is uncertain about success, he retreats. His life philosophy - which he himself is unaware of and which we infer - can be expressed as follows: "Since the world refuses to give me victory, I will retreat." He sees defeating others as the ultimate goal of his struggle, and from this perspective, we must admit that his approach is correct and clever.
In his own world, there is no "reason" or "common sense," only what I call "private intelligence." If his ideas are contradicted by objective facts, he will still take the same actions. The following example, which is often seen, also demonstrates that the same erroneous program can be observed in animals.
A puppy is trained to follow its owner on the street. After making considerable progress, one day it suddenly jumps onto a moving car and is thrown off, but without getting hurt. This is certainly a rare experience, and the puppy is unlikely to have an instinctive reaction to it. It continues to make progress in training, but cannot be induced to approach the location of the accident.
Therefore, it is difficult to describe this using the term "conditioned reflex." It is not afraid of the street or vehicles, but it is afraid of the location where the accident occurred. It makes the general inference that the blame lies not with its own carelessness or lack of experience, but with that location. It always perceives a threat at that location. It is similar to many other animals that follow similar programs. They are firmly attached to such explanations, which at least guarantee that they will not be harmed at "that location" again.
Similar structures are often seen in neuroses. Patients are afraid of failure and losing themselves, so they mistake physical and psychological symptoms as unsolvable problems and become mentally agitated. They use these symptoms to protect themselves and retreat from life.
It is evident that what affects us is not the "facts" themselves, but our interpretation of the facts. The confidence we display when interpreting these actual events is more or less insufficient. It depends on whether the interpretation is contradictory and whether the actions resulting from it are successful.
This is particularly important for inexperienced children and socially inept adults. It is easy to see that because our sphere of activity is often limited and because small errors and contradictions can be adjusted without much effort or help from others in relatively easy situations. This makes it easier for us to grasp our lifestyle once it is formed. Only those obvious and significant errors will force us to carefully examine them, and this only happens to those who are willing to solve life problems through cooperation and do not pursue personal superiority.
Therefore, we can conclude that everyone has a "concept" of themselves and life, a lifestyle, a dynamic law that holds them firmly, even though they may not understand or explain this concept. This dynamic law emerges within the narrow scope of childhood. It is developed freely using the innate abilities of individuals and the influence of the external world, without any action restrictions that can be expressed mathematically. It is a work of art created by children to guide and utilize all "instincts," "impulses," and impressions obtained from the external world and education for their purposes. It cannot be understood from the perspective of "having psychology" (Besitzpsychologie) and must be understood from the perspective of "using psychology" (Gebrauchpsychologie). Similar, almost identical, expressions are often used due to the poverty of language (language cannot express the subtle differences that always exist using simple words) or simply as possibilities in statistics.
If we establish unchanging rules based on the evidence of their existence, it would be a misuse; it should not be done. These rules are not helpful in understanding the nature of individual cases; they can only help understand the entire field, the unique characteristics of individual cases that exist within the field. For example, a diagnosis of strong inferiority complex is not helpful in understanding the nature of individual cases up to the point of diagnosis, nor does it indicate any shortcomings in education or social environment. These shortcomings manifest in the attitudes of individuals towards the external world, which are constantly changing. Because the intervention of a child's creativity and the intervention of explanations derived from creativity take different forms for each person. It is clear that many of these explanations may truly conflict with the real world and its social demands.
The erroneous ideas individuals have about themselves and life will eventually lead them into conflict with harsh reality, which requires solutions consistent with social norms. The effects of this conflict can be likened to an electric shock. The person who fails will believe that their lifestyle cannot withstand the demands of life (external factors), but this opinion will not disappear or change due to the shock. The pursuit of personal superiority will continue. The consequences of the shock can only be seen in the following phenomena: the person's sphere of action becomes narrower, and the narrow field is somewhat restricted; secondly, the person will eliminate tasks that threaten their life from failure; finally, they will retreat from problems for which they are not adequately prepared.
However, the effects of the shock are psychological and physical. It diminishes the remaining social sense and leads to various errors in life because it forces people to retreat. This is evident in the case of neurosis. Furthermore, it leads people to take the path of antisocial behavior. On this path, they will still take action within the remaining sphere of activity, but this does not mean that they are acting bravely.
Every case clearly demonstrates that "interpretation" is fundamental in a person's worldview and determines their thoughts, feelings, will, and actions.