Can there be a Grand Unified Theory of Personality?
Bradley Templeton Scobie
No single theory of personality can adequately explain the full function of human
behaviour.
Psychodynamic approaches often come under a lot of criticism as they fail to be
explicit about the underlying bases of the theory. Cognitive theories are not
very comfortable with explaining emotions and behavioural theories have
difficulty explaining the mechanisms of improvements.
It has become quite clear in the field of Psychology, and to some Psychologists
like Windy Dryden (Individual Therapy) explicitly clear that there is a missing
linkand that somewhere amongst the mass of theories on personality, the answer
is staring them in the face.
These Psychologists often practice a form of Psychology called Eclectism, which
takes a little out of each theory and unites it during therapy with a client.
You can’t use this sort of therapy as a theory however because all the Eclectic
Psychologist is doing is ignoring the fundamental ideological underpinnings of
the particular theories he is using and taking the parts relevant to their
client in therapy
This essay will explore one of the possible combinations of theories on
personality and explain how it can be applied in practical therapy.
Eysenkes theory of biological bases in behaviour is the base of this essays
approach. It provides the rules within which the other two personality theories
(Kellys Personal Construct Theory and Maslows Hierarchy of Human needs) can
function.
Using Eysenkes theory on extravert and introvert behaviour it is possible to
determine from birth, very general traits about which a person is willing to
work within (aggression, anxiety tolerance and sociability etc) which is where
this essay believes Kelly slightly misunderstands this concept and defines it
as his Range Corrollary. Really the person is experiencing a fundamental shift
from Extravert behaviour or thinking to Introvert or vice versa which causes
slight unease and can account for things like shyness etc.
One of the major criticisms of Kellys Personal Construct Theory is that he
finds it hard to explain why constructs are laid down in the first place and why
one would rigourously defend the threat to a core construct. What kick starts
the Construct system into defending itself when motivation is clearly and
explicitly lacking in his theory?
Eyesenkes theory provides an amicable solution. If we could assume that this
information was genetically coded in to the cells at birth then this no longer
becomes an issue and we can explain how’s and why the constructs are laid down
to a loose genetic template i.e introvertism and extravertism.
This fusion also removes the criticism of Eyesenke that his theory is a theory
of temperament rather than personality. If Eyesenkes theory really is just a
theory of Temperament then that is all good and well in this Unified theory as
it is merely a foundation or code upon which the rest of the personality can
develop. If you can see things on an evolutionary scale, then it is clear that
the change has to come from somewhere and that that change has the weight of
evidence in genetics.
In extravetism and Introvertism it is clear that there are distinct
disadvantages and advantages so it is not so much of a leap of faith to
consider that perhaps evolution is trying out to very distinct methods of
social interaction and the confusion resulting from this manifests itself as in
Psychologists trying to determine personality through one perspective alone
when Psychologists don’t consider our personalities to be in any sort of
evolutionary transition. The fact that Psychologists are unable to conclusively
predict human behaviour or thought using a single approach only serves to
strengthen this consideration.
Kelly’s Personal Construct Theory would simply say that the personal realities
of the Psychologists involved are unable to extend the range of their
constructs to accept this and understand the concept of personality in
evolutionary transition.
Without this consideration it is this essays position that it is impossible to
come to any conclusive rule about human personality or behaviour as you are not
accounting for the dynamic nature of two very different personal archetypes.
Kellys Personal Construct Theory goes a long way to explaining the human mind
but it needs the genetic archetype of Eyesenkes biological basis and a
motivation to interact with the society that the mind shares.
For Kelly this motivation comes from a natural inquisitive nature, but it is
not explicitly explained why the mind should be like this. It is only assumed.
Eyesenke again can provide the answer if you are willing to concede that this
sort of information can be genetically coded.
There is a problem however. The type of mind described in this essay is only
functional. It would not be a very rich or interesting apparatus and life would
be essentially a personal experience, which of course we know it not to be.
Human experience is shared daily and at many levels of interaction. Where does
this need come from?
It could be argued that it is merely a social constraint and that this need to
share and feel part of something is imposed upon us by the societies we live
in. It is the position of this essay that although there is an element of truth
in this predisposition that this argument is somewhat paradoxical. Where does
the need to feel loved or part of something come from in the absence of a
society? Would we still feel the need?
This drive is the thrust of this essays Grand Unified Theory of Personality and
the last piece of the Jigsaw. In order to make us the Social animals we are you
need a humanistic approach as an addition to your Theory. In this way, the mind
begins to take the sort of shape that a society would demand from it as being
‘normal’.
To illustrate this we will use Maslows Hierarchy of Human Needs as the
Humanistic ‘top up’.
The majority of Maslows needs are all ones that most Societies say we should
retain a measure of to be deemed healthy, and these include needs like love so
that we may feel fully integrated into society and do not become alienated, or
a need for self esteem to feel valuable to society and not inferior. Above all
this however is the need for ‘Self Actualisation’ which provides the mind with
its essence, a focus or goal of being. Without this focus most people will feel
innate and deeply depressed as if life was not worth living.