Singularity of Purpose: Reframing Neurotic Withdrawal and the Role of Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs)
In this article, we explore the misunderstood mechanics of withdrawal as a facet of neuroticism, reframing it from a simplistic notion of disengagement to a more complex phenomenon of cognitive and emotional dispersion. Withdrawal, we argue, does not equate to the absence of focus but rather to an overwhelming over-focus on a multitude of competing threats, distractions, and imagined contingencies.
The Cognitive Misrepresentation of Withdrawal Mechanics and SIVHs as a Reframing Tool
When it comes to high neuroticism as a personality trait and especially withdrawal, there are some interesting cognitive mechanics that are often considered rather superficially in the context of personality analysis. Namely, it is related to focusing on meaningful and also unpleasant and harder tasks. As we know, withdrawal is related to anxiety, fear, sadness, and self-consciousness — and the inclination to avoid situations perceived as threatening or overwhelming. However, the mechanics of that are often interpreted as an inability to focus at all and as the term “withdrawal” suggests, just withdrawing from action.
However, this interpretation neglects the nuanced cognitive mechanics that underlie the behavior. Withdrawal is frequently associated with the avoidance of tasks perceived as threatening, overwhelming, or laden with uncertainty. Yet, the core issue is not an inability to focus globally, but rather a maladaptive attentional allocation, where cognitive resources become hyper-focused on discomfort, potential failure, or negative affective states.
The True Mechanics of Withdrawal and Focus
The actual mechanics of withdrawal are better explained through the lens of brain functionality and the evolutionary design of motivational circuits. In states of perceived threat — whether physical, social, or abstract — the brain's primitive survival systems activate, with the primary aim not of disengaging from reality but of ensuring survival by hyper-prioritizing threat detection and avoidance. Contrary to the common interpretation that withdrawal equates to a “shutdown” of focus, it is more accurate to conceptualize withdrawal as a hyper-focus phenomenon — an overextension of cognitive resources across a multitude of perceived threats and contingencies.
As a result, withdrawal does not imply a loss of mental energy but rather its dissipation across an excessive array of hypothetical action plans. The brain, driven by an overactive threat appraisal system, generates a plethora of competing “micro-strategies,” creating a loop where attentional bandwidth is split across multiple contingency scenarios. In this state, actionable focus on a singular meaningful task is compromised — not due to mental lethargy, but due to an unsustainable division of resources across an overwhelming landscape of imagined threats and responses.
Concentration as a Symptom, Not an Initiation Technique
In such situations, both in everyday life of people with high neuroticism, or at the work environment, it is very easy to tell the person “to concentrate more” on one task. Also, all sorts of outside distractions can be removed. However, this ask can bear any fruit only in case there is enough mental clarity and even possibility of undivided focus in one’s head.
What is critical to understand is the following - a person with lower neuroticism is able to focus on a single task with monotheistic energy flow much more easily in the environment of high distraction, than a person with high withdrawal in a perfectly quiet and ideal undisturbed working environment.
Therefore, concentration is not purely an initiation technique but often the outcome or symptom of an internally regulated system that manages emotional and attentional control efficiently.
The Cyclopes and Archetype of Singular Focus
An interesting fact from Greek mythology many may not know: Cyclopes in Greek mythology were giants with just one eye. This is a clear representation of the importance of focus. Amongst other things, they were great blacksmiths. That, in turn, is the representation of forging something out of nothing or, in other words, getting things done (in more modern terms). They forged the lightning bolts to Zeus, trident to Poseidon, and Hades’ Helm of Darkness.
That is all related to the power of singular monotheistic focus. But, now we reach the core of the argument - what exactly is focus? Having one eye is a necessary limitation; it is no more a concentration achievement as focusing on a single task at hand, as it is a rejection of all other potential focuses. Thus Cyclopes and forging as blacksmiths is a symbolic representation of forgetting the existence and separating oneself from all the other tasks, as much as it is just channeling the strength and attention to a singular thing.
The Key to Singularity – A Biblical Perspective
The key to mastering singularity is thus internal first and foremost. Additionally, it is by no means related to removal of distraction to “allow” the focus to manifest itself. It is rather the conscious art of not caring about all other potential worries at any given moment in time, when there is one thing that is one action that is central.
As many know, sin in its essence is often interpreted as missing the mark. Thus what Jesus says in Matthew 5:29. “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” Where normally eyesight is what prevents one from stumbling, Jesus here states that eyesight should be sacrificed to prevent the greater stumbling of sin.
The True Meaning of Hamartia – Not Missing the Mark, but Hitting Endless Wrong Targets
Sin is nothing less than the inability to concentrate on a singular task, because “hamartia” should not be seen as “missing the mark,” but one should take one more step to conceptualization of this. Hamartia should be seen as “inherent inability” to even hit the mark because of the endless multitude of marks one desires to hit.
One often imagines hamartia as a person aiming, shooting an arrow and the arrow flying towards the desired mark and missing it (maybe just an inch like a bullet near Donald Trump’s ear). That is a wrong perception in the mind’s eye. What both Jesus and Greek mythology are trying to tell us is something far more sophisticated.
Hamartia is an active shooting of arrows in every which way as there are all different focuses all the time. It can be seen as a person with an endless number of arrows imagining targets everywhere and shooting arrows like a crazy person hitting the targets all the time, but those targets are just not the correct ones. That is the true mechanics of withdrawal in neuroticism.
SIVHs as an Antidote to Cognitive Fragmentation
What is the true tragedy of focusing on an endless number of actions is not even the fact that a person cannot get things done during a timeframe most associate with progress—as a day, week, or month. On a higher level of analysis, it is the inability to get things done over one’s lifetime.
Thus, the idea of Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs) can be a great way for a person to conceptualize the problem at least in a new light. There is no guarantee whatsoever that a mere clear SIVH would solve the hitting multiple unnecessary targets problem, but it certainly can help one closer, and if there is progress, also keep one on the way.
An SIVH offers a framework to redirect attentional and motivational energy toward a unified purpose. While it may not fully extinguish withdrawal-driven fragmentation, it serves as a powerful cognitive scaffolding to guide decision-making and long-term focus.
Conclusion: Toward Singular Action in a Fragmented Mind
The true cognitive and motivational cost of withdrawal is not simply immediate procrastination or avoidance, but the erosion of life-long coherence and achievement. Through our exploration of mythology, theology, and psychometric science, we identified that the solution to withdrawal is not merely external task prioritization, but internal singularity.
Cyclopes, biblical teachings on sin, and executive control theory converge to show that mastery of focus is the capacity to reject illegitimate or peripheral targets, aiming consistently toward meaningful goals. Here, SIVHs emerge as a practical and theoretical tool to correct the attentional and motivational fragmentation that defines withdrawal in neuroticism.
By consciously building and internalizing a hierarchy of values and goals, individuals can reorient themselves to singularity of action, moving away from the endless and fruitless scattering of cognitive and emotional energy.
Some of the References Used for the Article
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W.H. Freeman.
Becker, J. B., & Hu, M. (2008). Sex differences in drug abuse. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 29(1), 36-47.
Bethea, C. L., Lu, N. Z., Gundlah, C., & Streicher, J. M. (2002). Diverse actions of ovarian steroids in the serotonin neural system. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 23(1), 41-100.
Blatt, S. J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfectionism: Implications for the treatment of depression. American Psychologist, 50(12), 1003-1020.
Bouchard, T. J., & McGue, M. (2003). Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences. Journal of Neurobiology, 54(1), 4-45.
Carver, C. S., & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and coping. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 679-704.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the Self-Regulation of Behavior. Cambridge University Press.
Carter, C. S. (2007). Sex differences in oxytocin and vasopressin: Implications for autism spectrum disorders? Behavioural Brain Research, 176(1), 170-186.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper & Row.
Constantin, K., English, T., & Mazmanian, D. (2014). Neuroticism and procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 58-63.
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880-896.
DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Openness and plasticity over stability. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(4), 817-828.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135-168.
Dimidjian, S., Barrera, M., Martell, C., Muñoz, R. F., & Lewinsohn, P. M. (2011). The origins and current status of Behavioral Activation treatments for depression. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 7, 1-38.
Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Hill, S. E., Perilloux, C., & Li, N. P. (2008). Ovulation, female competition, and product choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 921-934.
Eysenck, M. W., & Derakshan, N. (2011). New perspectives in attentional control theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(7), 955-960.
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336-353.
Fanselow, M. S., & Lester, L. S. (1988). A functional behavioristic approach to aversively motivated behavior. In R.C. Bolles & M.D. Beecher (Eds.), Evolution and Learning. Erlbaum.
Fleming, A. S., Ruble, D., Krieger, H., & Wong, P. Y. (1997). Hormonal and experiential correlates of maternal responsiveness during pregnancy and the puerperium in human mothers. Hormones and Behavior, 31(2), 145-158.
Greendale, G. A., et al. (1999). Effects of the menopause transition and hormone use on cognitive performance. The American Journal of Epidemiology, 170(10), 1212-1221.
Gustavson, D. E., Miyake, A., Hewitt, J. K., & Friedman, N. P. (2015). Correlates of procrastination and its genetic relationship with internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(1), 184-193.
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1988). Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 22, 193-225.
Hesiod. Theogony. Trans. Hugh G. Evelyn-White.
Homer. Odyssey. Book 9.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.
Jung, C. G. (1968). Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Princeton University Press.
Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 23-52.
Klein, R. A., & Lee, K. (2006). Conscientiousness and task performance: Test of a self-regulation model. Journal of Personality, 74(4), 865-891.
Laland, K. N., Odling-Smee, F. J., & Feldman, M. W. (2000). Niche construction, biological evolution, and cultural change. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(1), 131-175.
LeDoux, J. (2012). Rethinking the Emotional Brain. Neuron, 73(4), 653-676.
Maner, J. K., & Miller, S. L. (2014). Hormones and social monitoring: Menstrual cycle shifts in progesterone underlie women's sensitivity to social information. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(1), 9-16.
McEwen, B. S., & Milner, T. A. (2017). Understanding the broad influence of sex hormones and sex differences in the brain. Journal of Neuroscience Research, 95(1-2), 24-39.
Mobbs, D., et al. (2007). When fear is near: Threat imminence elicits prefrontal-periaqueductal gray shifts in humans. Science, 317(5841), 1079-1083.
Polderman, T. J. C., et al. (2015). Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nature Genetics, 47(7), 702-709.
Robinson, M. D., Schmeichel, B. J., & Inzlicht, M. (2007). A cognitive control perspective of trait anxiety and task engagement. Emotion, 7(3), 438-445.
Roney, J. R., & Simmons, Z. L. (2008). Women's estradiol predicts preference for facial cues of men's testosterone. Hormones and Behavior, 53(1), 14-19.
Rowe, D. C., Jacobson, K. C., & Van den Oord, E. J. (1999). Genetic and environmental influences on vocabulary IQ: Parental education level as moderator. Child Development, 70(5), 1151-1162.
Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype→ environment effects. Child Development, 54(2), 424-435.
Sherwin, B. B. (1996). Hormones, mood, and cognitive functioning in postmenopausal women. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 87(2), 20S-26S.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65-94.
Taylor, S. E., et al. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, 107(3), 411-429.
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action. MIT Press.
Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Harden, K. P. (2012). Intellectual interest mediates gene x socioeconomic status interaction on adolescent academic achievement. Child Development, 83(2), 743-757.
