The Ambivalent type seldom dares to question the fundamental values of his social environment, but he is often
indifferent to these values, paying them only perfunctory respect. In the areas of life to which these values pertain,
he does not assert counter-values of his own, he merely withdraws, surrendering those aspects of reality to others.
He tends to restrict his activity and concern to the sphere of his work, where his self-reliance and sovereignty are
greatest.
His bondage to social metaphysics is revealed in his quietly persistent sense of alienation from reality, in his lack of
confidence and freedom with regard to passing value-judgments, in his implicit belief that the world is controlled
by others, that others possess a knowledge forever unknowable to him, and in his humiliating desire for "approval"
and "acceptance." His superiority to other social metaphysicians is evidenced, not only by his greater
independence, but also by his desire to earn, through objective achievements, the esteem he longs for, by his
relative inability to find real pleasure in an admiration not based on standards he can respect—and by his tortured
disgust at his own fear of the disapproval of others. Often, he tries to fight his fear, refusing to act on or surrender
to it, exercising immense will power and discipline—but never winning his battle fully, never setting himself free,
because he does not go to the roots of his problem, does not identify the psycho-epistemological base of his
betrayal, does not accept full and ultimate intellectual responsibility for his own life and goals.
Among this type, one will find men of distinguished achievements and outstanding creative originality—whose
reason and tragedy lie in the contrast between their private lives and their lives as creators. These are the men who
have the courage to challenge the cognitive judgments of world figures, but lack the courage to challenge the value-
judgments of the folks next door.
It must be understood that none of the social metaphysical types I have described are intended to represent mutually
exclusive categories; any particular social metaphysician may possess characteristics of several types. The purpose
of such a typological description is to isolate, by a process of abstraction, certain dominant trends among social
metaphysicians, and to make those trends intelligible motivationally.