Neurobiological Predisposition, Ego Boundary

Formation, and the Filtering of Consciousness

An Integrative, Exploratory Framework Informed by Depth Psychology,

Trauma Theory, and Attachment

Ruth Pamela Plain, MSW, RCSW

Prefatory Note on Scope and Intent

What follows is not offered as a closed theory, diagnostic system, or universal model of

personality. Rather, it is an emerging, exploratory framework grounded in repeated clinical

observations, lived experience, and sustained reflection across depth psychology, trauma

theory, attachment research, and neurobiological perspectives.

The patterns described here are probabilistic, not absolute. Individuals do not fall neatly into

categories, nor are neurobiological predispositions destiny. Each person contains multiple

adaptations, contradictions, and developmental possibilities. This framework is best understood

as a set of recurring tendencies that appear to shape how consciousness is filtered, defended,

and integrated over time.

The intention is not to reduce complexity, but to name it more clearly—and to offer a language

that can hold nuance, paradox, and curiosity rather than certainty.

Neurobiological Predisposition and the Filtering of Consciousness

This framework begins with the assumption that individuals enter the world with biologically

mediated differences in nervous system sensitivity. Research on neurodivergence suggests that

variations in sensory processing, arousal thresholds, interoceptive speed, and affective intensity

are, at least in part, heritable. These differences shape how experience is registered at the most

basic level—before meaning-making, socialization, or narrative identity emerge.

Rather than viewing the nervous system merely as a regulator of stress responses, this model

understands it as a primary filter of consciousness. What is perceived, felt, and symbolized is

influenced by baseline neuroceptivity (sensitivity to safety and threat cues) and interoception

(the speed and intensity with which bodily and emotional states are felt).

Individuals often labeled with ADHD—used here descriptively and in quotation

marks—frequently present with high-sensitivity nervous systems. These individuals tend to

experience rapid, intense access to feeling states, bodily sensations, relational atmospheres,

and unconscious or implicit dynamics. Their consciousness is oriented toward immediacy,

affect, and subtext rather than abstraction or delayed reflection.

Early Mirroring, Attachment, and Ego Boundary Formation

Attachment theory provides a crucial bridge between neurobiology and ego development. Highly

sensitive individuals often require caregivers who can mirror and regulate intense and nuanced

internal states. When such mirroring is absent—particularly in cultural contexts that devalue

emotional expression—these individuals may experience chronic invalidation of their

perceptions and feelings.

From an attachment perspective, this often results in anxious or disorganized strategies,

characterized by heightened attunement to others and a reliance on relational regulation to

manage distress. Safety is maintained not through internal coherence, but through proximity,

appeasement, and emotional monitoring of the environment.

Ego boundaries in such individuals tend to remain thin and permeable, allowing for deep

empathy and sensitivity but also increasing vulnerability to merging, over-responsibility, and

identity diffusion. Anxiety and shame are regulated relationally rather than intrapsychically, and

the self may be experienced as unstable or difficult to locate.

By contrast, individuals with lower baseline sensitivity or thicker ego boundaries—often aligning

more closely with culturally reinforced “neurotypical” functioning—may find it easier to meet

social expectations and maintain coherence through structure, role adherence, and emotional

restraint. Attachment strategies in this group may appear more avoidant or dismissive, with

safety achieved through autonomy, control, or cognitive mastery rather than affective

attunement.

Trauma Adaptation as Structural Reorganization

Trauma models contribute an essential insight: trauma does not merely create symptoms; it

reorganizes perception and meaning-making. For highly sensitive individuals, repeated

invalidation of lived experience can function as a form of relational trauma, even in the absence

of overt abuse. Over time, adaptations such as fawning, people-pleasing, and emotional

suppression emerge as strategies for preserving attachment and safety.

These adaptations often involve a disconnection from the self—not because feeling is absent,

but because it is overwhelming and unsafe to trust. Shame becomes internalized (“something is

wrong with me”), and the individual may struggle to distinguish personal responsibility from

relational projection. Addictive behaviors, anxiety, and self-directed aggression may arise as

attempts to regulate intensity and restore coherence.

In more defended nervous system configurations, trauma adaptations may take the form of

denial, intellectualization, projection, or externalization. Because access to feeling is more

limited—either constitutionally or through socialization—instinctual material such as aggression,

sexuality, envy, or dependency may be split off into the shadow rather than consciously

processed. Shame is experienced as destabilizing and is therefore avoided, displaced, or

moralized.

Jungian Function Theory and Symbolic Access

Jungian typology offers a symbolic lens through which these patterns can be further understood.

In this framework, psychological functions—thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition—are not

fixed traits but preferred channels of consciousness shaped by nervous system capacity and

developmental history.

Highly sensitive individuals often demonstrate strong access to feeling and intuition, allowing for

symbolic richness, empathy, and awareness of unconscious material. However, when these

functions are invalidated or shamed, they may be defensively split off, leading to oscillations

between overwhelm and emotional numbing. Thinking may be recruited defensively to manage

chaos rather than to support integration.

More defended individuals frequently rely on thinking and sensing functions, which provide

structure, predictability, and distance from affect. Feeling and intuition may remain

underdeveloped or unconscious, contributing to difficulties with empathy, self-reflection, and

moral repair when instinctual material breaks through.

From a Jungian perspective, individuation requires not the dominance of any one function, but

the integration of what has been disowned. The shadow is not defined by moral content, but by

what consciousness cannot yet tolerate.

Therapeutic Implications and Paths to Individuation

Clinically, these structural differences manifest in distinct therapeutic trajectories. Highly

sensitive individuals are often drawn to therapy due to chronic self-doubt, shame, and emotional

distress. Their capacity for introspection and accountability, while sometimes excessive, also

makes them highly reachable in treatment. Therapeutic work typically focuses on boundary

consolidation, validation of subjective experience, relinquishing inherited shame, and reclaiming

agency and anger that were previously disallowed.

For more defended individuals, therapy may be less immediately accessible. Reduced affective

awareness can support convincing self-narratives of blamelessness or control, delaying

help-seeking. When therapy does occur, it often follows rupture or loss that destabilizes existing

defenses. Treatment emphasizes increasing affect tolerance, accessing vulnerability, and

integrating instinctual material that has long remained unconscious.

Importantly, this framework does not assume greater moral capacity or lesser harm potential in

any group. All humans possess instinctual drives toward aggression, sexuality, and domination.

What differentiates developmental outcomes is not the presence of these forces, but the

capacity to hold them consciously, reflectively, and relationally.

Conclusion: Sensitivity, Defensiveness, and the Work of Integration

This emerging framework suggests that psychological maturity is not best measured by

emotional containment or social conformity, but by the breadth of experience that consciousness

can metabolize without collapse or denial. Sensitivity confers vulnerability and depth;

defensiveness confers stability and risk. Individuation, across all configurations, depends upon

the ability to tolerate tension, assume responsibility, and bring disowned aspects of the self into

awareness and relationship.

Seen in this light, pathology is less a matter of emotional intensity than of restricted access to

feeling and symbolization. Integration is not the eradication of instinct, but its conscious

participation in the life of the psyche.