Dear TOKers: I address this to all because there were multiple participants in the is-ought presentation by Steve Q, as well as in subsequent discussion - and, because I don’t have email addresses for each of you. If what I offer is of no interest, then I apologize in advance for cluttering you in box. Steve’s presentation was well done and certainly stimulated considerable and wide-ranging responses. So much so, in fact, that other topics for subsequent presentation and discussion were identifiable. I am particularly intrigued and drawn to the matter of “flexibility” or “variability” in the individual human personality. At least, that’s how I responded to parts of the presentation and discussion. For those who are interested in further exploration of is-ought and individual human “personality” variability I attach the following - in both MSWord doc and pdf formats. Of course, anyone is welcome to peruse and respond. I look forward to your rejoinders. Fair warning - it’s kind of a “geeky” conceptual analysis. Reading it might be worth about 75 mg of phenobarbital. 😴 Best regards, Waldemar Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD (Perseveret et Percipiunt) 503.631.8044 Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein) > On Nov 3, 2020, at 2:51 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Hi Folks, > Just wanted to say thanks to Steve Q for sharing his story regarding the problem of value in psychology. It affirmed for me strongly how fraught the problems of simply applying the methodological language game of MENS is to human psychology, as it comes with many different “value parameters” that can quickly be overlooked and hidden, and extreme assumptions of “objectivity” become masked and tangled with the methods. > > My proposal is for a metapsychology that uses the ToK System instead of empirical methodology as the language game of MENS. The reason is obviously, metaphysical/conceptual clarity. For example, it was clear that the exchange, as all the TOK Community exchanges have been, along with virtually all other zoom exchanges, take place on the Culture-Person plane of existence and involve justification, investment and influence dynamics. In the broad sense, Steve shared his justification narrative for his struggles with the justifications that empirical psychology, especially trait personality psychology, offer. > > Mike M largely concurred. I did also, with a caveat. The problem is largely resolved, IMO, when we have the right metaphysical map of human psychology. The “traits” of the Big Five are, indeed, dispositional tendencies that emerge over the course of development. There are genetic differences that track onto behavioral dispositional differences, although the road is complicated and filled with feedback loops, such that genes clearly don’t cause traits. > > I could go on, but the point is that we need a theory of “traits”, just like we need a theory/frame for talking about our entire subject matter. And, ala Mike’s arguments, that does need to be intersubjectively constructed. (Note, BTW, I am noting an interesting set of tensions is emerging between folks in the group who emphasize epistemological positions that are grounded in: 1) subjective/phenomenological v 2) objective/behavioral v 3) intersubjective/language). > > The question I pose: What is the proper language game for human psychology? For me, the metapsychology provided by UTOK provides the best way forward. For starters, it shines the light on the Enlightenment Gap <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202010_the-2Denlightenment-2Dgap&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=7puxROe-6EiWnzTBv7wsGh76sdd1aH_24zB0fYqErhY&s=qEG_lrh2jTZ0PGO_8bQ8OGb6ekiyJbMa2kt9pi9LSa0&e= > and offers a way to resolve that. I would argue it was in the shadow of the Enlightenment Gap that Steve found his “is-ought” problem. And the proper way forward is not via the empirical methods of science, but first, a language game that gets the field of inquiry clear. We were headed in that direction near the end: What are the needs we have as Primates? How do we justify our selves as Persons? > > Best, > Gregg > > ___________________________________________ > Gregg Henriques, Ph.D. > Professor > Department of Graduate Psychology > 216 Johnston Hall > MSC 7401 > James Madison University > Harrisonburg, VA 22807 > (540) 568-7857 (phone) > (540) 568-4747 (fax) > > Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity. > > Check out the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=7puxROe-6EiWnzTBv7wsGh76sdd1aH_24zB0fYqErhY&s=QywVkjta8ayNeKfzw30I4YNx0kUUatJb1J4Bu66lVpw&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=7puxROe-6EiWnzTBv7wsGh76sdd1aH_24zB0fYqErhY&s=QywVkjta8ayNeKfzw30I4YNx0kUUatJb1J4Bu66lVpw&e= > > > ############################ > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1