Scientific literature becomes outdated faster and, let’s say, on a larger scale than fiction. In psychology too. And if we consider the books of the classics of psychotherapy and counseling useful even now (we are learning the fundamental aspects of working with a client), then the closer the text is to the science of its time, the more quickly it loses its relevance. However, it seems to me that even in old scientifically oriented books one can glean something useful if one adjusts the focus of the reader’s gaze. Today I want to discuss what useful things you can learn from David Shapiro’s book “Neurotic Styles” (first published in 1965). A little about the author Let me immediately draw your attention to the fact that there are quite a lot of psychologists and psychiatrists named David Shapiro. The author of Neurotic Styles was born in 1924. Judging by the information on the website of The New School for Social Research, the professor still teaches students, which causes great respect. Shapiro’s scientific interests lie in the field of psychopathology and clinical psychology. In addition to “Neurotic Styles,” he published such books as “Autonomy and the Rigid Personality” (1981), “Psychotherapy of a Neurotic Character” (1989), “Character Dynamics: Self-Regulation in Psychopathology” (2000). Briefly about the contents Shapiro analyzes cognitive processes: perception, attention, thinking, memory, imagination, decision making. Their combined specificity results in a certain style. According to the point of view proposed by the author, cognitive style directs emotions and behavior, and also determines the appearance of one or another mental defense. Neurosis is ultimately determined precisely by the organization of the cognitive apparatus and the sum of stable forms of activity. “...individual cognitive styles, without a doubt, are one of the aspects of the matrix that determines the nature of defensive reactions and the form of the pathological symptom” “... in humans there are relatively stable cognitive dispositions that determine the form of influence exerted by a motive or need" "Stable forms of activity cause the individual transition of an instinctive impulse (or external stimulus) into conscious subjective experience, behavior and symptoms" Based on clinical observations, Shapiro identifies four main neurotic styles: obsessive-compulsive; paranoid; hysterical; impulsive. I will try to give the main features of each style and describe them very briefly. Perhaps, we should immediately stipulate: of course, “pure” styles are much less common than some mixture of them, so you should not perceive the selection of styles as dividing all people into carriers exclusively of one or another option. Obsessive-compulsive style The attention of a compulsive person is intense, clear, it focuses on technical details rather than essential ones. Therefore, new information is rather a burden for him, because it either distracts or adds new characteristics, rather than helping him to comprehend the truth - he doesn’t need the truth at all, he needs technical details. As a result, Shapiro writes, even choosing a suit for going to work can take an unimaginable amount of time, not to mention more important choices. Decision-making in people with an obsessive-compulsive style is undeveloped: it is more like a jump - the “technical details” of all the suits turned out to be equivalent, but you still have to go to work, and then, with agony, just one of them is chosen, who happens to be on the trajectory of this “ jump.” Shapiro writes that activity for people of this style is impossible without tension. However, this tension is in no way related to the purpose of the activity. Let's say I need to write an article, but I direct my stress not to writing it or to studying the subject, but to simply straining. Roughly speaking, I need to show myself: I’m working seriously, and this can be seen, because I’m so tense! For people with an obsessive-compulsive style, it is important to realize that they are someone, to play a certain role: for example, I work as a journalist, and it is important for me to think and remember, WhatI am a journalist, and journalists do this and that. “A real journalist always/never...” etc. I would like to note one more remark by Shapiro. A characteristic thought for a person with an obsessive-compulsive style is “I must.” I must try to write this article. I must, like a real journalist, do this. I have to put on this suit today, because... But no, I have to put on another one, because... And so on. Paranoid style The thinking of the bearer of the paranoid style is rigid, writes Shapiro. First of all, the paranoid seeks confirmation of his suspicions. The author calls the model of cognition characteristic of the paranoid style “hyper-vigilant.” By and large, a paranoid person is not afraid of danger as such, but of the fact that it will come unexpectedly. To prevent this from happening, he has to be very careful. According to Shapiro, intense attention allows one to achieve high results in intelligence tests. However, from his correct observations, a person with a paranoid style draws incorrect conclusions. He does not deny facts that are new to him, but looks through them, as it were. In general, it doesn’t matter to a paranoid person what happens - what matters is what is meant by it. And often some kind of conspiracy against him is implied. Hysterical style David Shapiro builds an interesting logical chain when talking about the hysterical style. According to him, it is associated with such mental defense as repression. And it, in turn, is determined precisely by the model of cognition. Such cognition is scattered, not concentrated, attention is not focused. It is not the facts that are important, but the impressions from them. Shapiro gives an example from his own practice. She answered the specialist’s questions about the patient’s father like this: “Oh! He was like a hurricane!” And nothing more could be achieved. Here the impression has supplanted the facts that originally caused it. This happens because people with a hysterical style have impaired cognitive integration, says Shapiro. In a situation, affect manifests itself immediately and immediately becomes the final cognitive product. The author notes: carriers of the hysterical style often do not have stable and deep interests and goals, which is explained by their model of cognition. It is important to understand that on the part of hysterics this is not an ignorance of reality, but the nature of the attitude towards it. And one more thing. According to Shapiro, people of the hysterical style do not perceive affects as their own: in their opinion, this is something that came to them from the outside. Maybe from someone else (and then this can become a deep resentment), maybe from intangible forces in general. Impulsive (+ passive) style The most convenient illustration for describing the impulsive-passive style is a drunkard. You can even take a specific one – the character from “The Little Prince”. Saint-Exupery perfectly showed in a few words how the impulsive-passive style works: I drink to forget - to forget that I am ashamed - to drink. Shapiro identifies several characteristic features of the impulsive style. Formation of judgment is impaired. Attention is not critical. Cognition in general becomes insufficiently integrative. Those with an impulsive style have no obvious motivation; accordingly, they do not formulate clear decisions. They are not interested in the content of the object of their aspiration, therefore, the meaning of actions sometimes remains a mystery to them. Why is the style called impulsive? Because the basis of activity is a whim (impulse), which is immediately embodied. The power of whim is not balanced by anything, since people of this style have undeveloped interests, goals, and values. It is the deficit of the cognitive sphere that causes haste, suddenness and unplanned actions, writes Shapiro. It is interesting that the author of the book mentions “underdeveloped conscience” among the features of the impulsive style. It seems to me that this is also clearly seen in the example of the drunkard from “The Little Prince”: he seems to be ashamed, but for what and why, he himself cannot really say. Shapiro, of course, cites not only drunkards as illustrations - among the examples there is also a place for carriers of other addictions. However, in my opinion, it should be kept in mind that the vast majority will not come out.