Characteristically, the compensated Externalizer presents an internalized picture to the observer, and, with varying degrees of success, to himself. His reactivity is predominantly ideational; his orientation is Internalized and essentially self-sufficient; and his behavior is primarily passive. Unlike the uncompensated Internalizer, whom he resembles in many ways, he is more or less tense, because of the conflicting nature of his inherent and acquired tendencies.
A primitive Externalizer can be either moderately or extremely compensated at the basic level. In the symbol system of the theory, the former is represented as an [i*=Ec] and the latter as an [i*+=Ec+]. Both are individuals who began as active, perceptually dominant children, and who were pressured into passive, ideationally-oriented adolescence by external direction and control.
The common developmental characteristic of the "Ec" adjustments, as contrasted with the "Eu" types, is the ability to achieve and maintain self-initiated guidance and control of perceptual activity. The compensated Externalizer has reacted against his initial perceptual reactivity, because strong guilt feelings have become associated with it. In order to escape from guilt and inferiority feelings, the [i*=Ec], and, more particularly the [i*+=Ec+] must maintain his adopted internalized orientation.
Because the [i*=Ec] or the [i*+=Ec+] adjustment rests on conflicting tendencies, it is tension-prone, anxiety-laden, and., at times, depression-producing. The depression of the "Ec" types, however, is not the inwardly-directed, covert depression of the Internalizer. It is far more likely to take the form of the characteristically overt sadness and profound observable moodiness of the Externalizer. The [i*=Ec] or the [i*+=Ec+] does not lose access to his natural avenues of self-expression merely because he has renounced them.
The [i*=Ec], and to an even greater extent, the [i*+=Ec+], has protected himself from guilt and inferiority by an intense commitment to, and involvement with, the internal environment. However, even when he undertakes complete rejection of his primitive externalized tendency, he can reject it only as an Externalizer. Since he has not escaped entirely from his inherent nature, his development may be characterized by inhibition and even by repression, but it is not essentially one-sided. The availability of his inherent externalized abilities, however, will depend on the strength of the compensatory structure which he has erected against them. They are more available to the [i*=Ec] than to the [i*+=Ec+], since the latter has been forced toward a more extreme form of defensiveness.
The [i*=Ec] and the [e=Eu] resemble each other in a number of ways, because of their common primitive tendency, and the moderate nature of their adaptive activities. The [i*+=Ec+] and the [e+=Eu+] are also alike in many respects, on the basis of a shared primitive tendency, and an extreme degree of compensation and lack of compensation, respectively. The [i*=Ec] has adopted the [e=Eu] role to the extent of partial belief in it, while the [i*+=Ec+] believes in it completely. The roles bring stress to both, but also accord advantages which the [e=Eu] and the [e+=Eu+] lack. The [i*=Ec] is less likely to shift in the [e+=Eu+] direction under stress, and is also less prone to disabling inferiority feelings.
Although the [i*=Ec] is not predominantly intellectual in his interests, he is more capable of handling intellectual material than the [e=Eu]. He can become quite competent in dealing with abstract, ideational activities, though it will require considerable effort for him to do so. He can recognize the value of loyalty, and may strive to attain it in the face of his own tendencies toward disloyalty. He may also realize that he inclines toward uncontrolled emotionality, and make self-initiated efforts to control it.
Both the [i*=Ec] and the [i*+=Ec+] have the potential for utilizing both internalized and externalized abilities. However, the greatest hazard inherent in these orientations is proneness to conflict and anxiety, which may become sufficiently intense to be disabling. The individual is aware of the need to respond to both internalized and. externalized demands, and may be unable to choose between them'. A further source of possible maladjustments in these adjustments lies in the strong guilt feelings which the individual associates with his underlying externalized, tendency. Although he is capable of responding appropriately to pressures toward externalized behavior, he may be unable to acknowledge his perceptual awareness without experiencing extreme, and even paralyzing, anxiety and guilt. The [i*+=Ec+] is especially vulnerable in this respect.
The theory considers the [i*=Ec] adjustment a suppressed state, since the individual remains aware of the conflict between his natural and acquired tendencies. The [i*+=Ec+], on the other hand, is thought to be repressed, since the individual has denied the existence of his primitive tendency, and must thereafter over-control his own inherent reactions. The [i*+=Ec+] masks his primitive activity with extreme passivity, and reacts against his perceptual acuity with a too-exclusive emphasis on the ideational. He becomes hostile and negativistic to externalized traits, because of the threat to his defenses. In a sense, the [i*+=Ec+] has developed a self-picture which approaches the delusional.
The [i*+=Ec+] is an example of reaction formation, as the theory interprets the process. The term Implies many of the psychological characteristics usually associated with the concept. It is regarded as a two-fold defense, in which the individual first denies certain truths about himself because he regards them as Role Uniform, and then replaces them, in his own belief, with their opposites. The primitive Externalizer, when he achieves an [i*+=Ec+] basic adaptation, deludes himself into believing that he is and always was a complete Internalizer. In support of this position, he is apt to attack all externalized traits, in others as well as in himself. The irrational intensity of the hostility of the [i*+=Ec+] to externalized behavior Is a response to the threat which it holds for his delusions about himself.
The [i*+=Ec+] can become cruel, and even sadistic, in his personal relationships, to defend himself from the unconscious accusation of interpersonal dependence. He will deride the perceptual and exalt the ideational, responding to both with the requirements of his own defensive structure. An [i*+=Ec+] may become compulsively preoccupied with intellectual activities, in order to exclude his perceptual responsiveness from awareness. He is also capable of achieving a high degree of self-sufficiency, in order to cover his unconscious need for close interpersonal involvements.