Science, meet Creative License

Introduction

“The truth is one, paths are many”

–Mahatma Gandhi

The truth about personality is one, yet various theories of personality exist. It is my view that a unified theory can be developed that can account for all elements of personality. I consider the theories in Olson’s text, “An Introduction to Theories of Personality” (2011), to be parts of a whole analogous to Olson’s description of personality as a composite of factors. According to Olson (2011, p. 6), personality is a function of:

Olson (2011) also asserts that “[t]he elements emphasized depend on which theory one considers” and that “personality theorists attempt to synthesize the best information … into a coherent, holistic configuration” (pp. 6–7). I assert a language that incorporates all elements of theories into a higher level of abstraction could eliminate emphasizing one theory over another.[1]

A Theory of Personality

Quantum Field Theory

Carl Rogers described a phenomenological field containing symbols of actual and potential experiences of a person (Olson, 2011, p. 441). Jan Christiaan Smuts described a “Field of Nature” as “the source of the grand Ecology of the universe…. It is not a mere figure of speech or figment of the imagination, but a reality” (Smuts, 1926, p. 352). I borrow from Rogers and Smuts while generalizing Olson’s “personality function” as a “personality field,” Ψ, so as to subsume all the elements of personality.[2] The field, Ψ, is real to the extent that there are real observables.[3] I assert that Ψ behaves in accordance with at least the laws of quantum mechanics. Dynamics of the field includes:

• quantum indeterminism
• probabilistic collapse of the “wave function;”
• wave-particle duality;
• wave dynamics and interference;
• non-local and acausal effects.

Common Beginnings

We are born into a human body accompanied by “thrownness” (Olson, 2011, p. 506). The body comprises matter — corresponding to Rollo May’s Umwelt (Olson, 2011, p. 504) — which is both electromagnetic and quantum mechanical in nature. We are born with innate physical fields and, I assert, with a basic personality field Ψ_B which is common to all human beings.[4]

Quantum Autonomy

In quantum mechanics, the wave function ψ of a physical system contains all the possible outcomes of the system.[5] Similarly, the basic personality field Ψ_B contains all the possible responses of a person’s psychological system, similar to Clark Hull’s response hierarchies (Olson, 2011, p. 296). In exact analogy to quantum mechanics for physical wave functions, ψ, a portion of the personality wave function Ψ_B collapses into an observable outcome in response to something. The observable outcomes can be mapped on to the various potential available states described by personality theories[6] that propose a set of possible states into which one’s Ψ_B may collapse. Upon a collapse in the field, the Ψ_B has made a transition to a new state Ψ_C unique to the individual yet not so different from the basic state. Over time Ψ evolves, making individual differences become more apparent.

The physical collapse of the personality wave function is carried out by the brain but is initiated by the Self through its capacity for response and choice — perhaps functions of the Eigenwelt (Olson, 2011, p. 504). An infant in its thrownness is unaware of the power of Self yet collapses the basic personality field all the same. Portions of the field that have collapsed into observable states are considered stable until displaced, amended, or disappeared by an efficacious choice. These stable states carry the influence of the past choice into the present. Thoughts about the future, such as plans and self-regulating structures, are also carried into the present. The field of personality occurs now.

A human has radical autonomy over Ψ. In support of this view, Walter Mishel found that people are better predictors of their own behavior than the best available personality tests (Olson, 2011, pp. 326–327). I assert that Mishel’s observation is consistent with a theory of people as creators, not just predictors, of their behaviors. In other words, a prediction is a self-mand (cf. B.F. Skinner’s verbal behavior, Oslon, 2011, p. 271) that collapses at least a portion the wave function of the personality field into a stable, predictable state. As a result, behaviors are as consistent as a person creates those behaviors. This model of behavior would resolve Michel’s “consistency paradox” to the extent that persons release from their Ψ the persistent, unsupported belief in consistency (Olson, 2011, p. 327).

Autonomy over Ψ includes forgetting the Self and denying the power of choice. This forgetting has the effect of repression. According to Freud, “the essence of repression lies in simply turning something away, and keeping it at a distance from the conscious” (Olson, 2011, p. 34). The “turning away” is an autonomous choice. Similarly, people are controlled externally to the extent that they permit themselves to be controlled externally, for example by an acceptance of what Karen Horney called a “tyranny of the should” (Olson, 2011, p. 134) in their Ψ.

These types of so-called unconscious decisions give the appearance of randomness, inefficacy, and the “witchy” influence of the past (Steiner, 1974, p. 89). The same power of autonomy is used to remember that which was forgotten, and to assert control where control was purposefully relinquished. It could be said, paradoxically, that behavior is both freely chosen and determined. This paradox echoes the “particle-wave duality” of nature wherein elementary particles act like both particles and waves.

Behavior is motivated by whatever a person choses to assign a meaning that would cause motivation — i.e. whatever is internally symbolized in the field Ψ as a structure that causes motivation. A person may assign a motivational meaning to self-regulation, planning, self-efficacy, expectancies, etc. (Olson, 2011, pp. 336–338). Generally, positive structures in Ψ (happiness, peace, love, etc.) can be motivators; however negative attributes can also serve as motivators. Furthermore, the set of possible states itself selects for behavior. According to Delprato (2009), “[t]oday’s physical scientists do not adopt a cause–effect outlook.… Instead, the field alternative to the terms cause and effect of ordinary language ‘is the entire set of conditions [an event-field]’ … and this set represents the cause of an event.” (p. 672)

Therapy based on this theory would focus on personal responsibility in the present for both past and future behavior. If one can accept responsibility for behavior in the past, then one can be responsible for behavior now and in the future. This theory focuses on existential abilities of humans to be: to be responsible, to be happy, to be sad, to be angry, etc. Whether or not a person is aware of these abilities, the effects of the abilities are made real. In other words, regardless of a failure to distinguish choice X from the background environment into awareness, the act of choosing to be X affects a person’s physical and psychological reality. To be effective, a therapist must accept and work with this aspect of human nature. Goals of psychotherapy should include present-moment awareness of the whole personality field, conscious creation of Ψ, and the interaction of Ψ with that of others.

Quantum Connectedness

The question of personality only arises within the context of a plurality of personalities — the Mitwelt (Olson, 2011, p. 504). Quantum mechanics provides a model for understanding group dynamics. As an example, consider Young’s double-slit experiments in which electrons were passed stochastically between a set of screens as in Figure 1(a). Even when electrons were passed through the screens one at a time, a pattern formed as if the electrons had properties of a non-local wave. See Figure 1(b). “It is as if the two particles were in instantaneous two-way communication exchanging active information that enables each particle to ‘know’ what has happened to the other and to respond accordingly” (O’Neill, 2008, p. 15). Furthermore, “the act of measuring determines the nature of that which is being measured. Hence, the observer has become part of the … equation” (O’Neill, 2008, p. 18). This aspect of quantum mechanics is called the observer effect.

Figure 1. Young’s double-slit experiment. Single electrons interfere with other electrons even in the absence of other electrons.

The results of Young’s experiments suggest that the fields of all people interact together[7] and influence one another. This mutual influence is the quantum version of Bandura’s “reciprocal determinism” (Olson, 2011, p. 328) wherein the environment now includes the personality field of other people. “As we become aware of each other we change each other” (O’Neill, 2008, p. 17).

Furthermore, by the principle of quantum entanglement — when a particle interacts with another particle — the particles share a persistent mutual relationship that has observable effects.[8] Experiments show “evidence of synchronization of rapid eye movement sleep cycles between mother and developing foetus [sic]… Thus, in a way, we never really leave our families, our groups” (Read, 1997, p. 75). The impression of the collective cultural field on the basic field induces phylogenetically acquired mandates of the super-ego, archetypes, and evolutionarily-advanced psychological mechanisms.

However, as the Self develops (cf. Kelly’s scientist, Olson, 2011, p. 405) an awareness of autonomy develops. In accordance with May, with freedom to choose one’s personal field comes the responsibility (Olson, 2011, p. 505) that one’s field influences the field of others. In accordance with Maslow, “B-love, in a sense, creates the partner” (Olson, 2011, p. 479). And in general we co-create each other and each other’s behavior. I assert that humans are co-creators of a cultural-societal Ψ that enters into reciprocal determinism of individual personality fields.

Aside from perhaps Gestalt theory, I am unaware of a theory of personality that suggests that humans create each other’s behavior, and might even take responsibility for it. “Consistent with Gestalt therapy theory, awareness by and of itself has an effect on reality.…[W]e are instruments of the field. If indeed quantum and field theory implications are assumed realities, how might we operate as therapists?” (O’Neill, 2008, p. 18)

Conclusion

I do not claim to have created a theory that can account for all elements of personality. I do assert that such a theory may exist and I offer a perspective that, for me, is a step towards unification. To a large extent, I reject Karl Popper’s view that a theory that explains everything is not scientific (Olson, 2011, p. 15) — for isn’t that the goal of science? But I do not go so far as to say that a theory that explains everything is scientific.

How does one form a personal theory of personality? As evidenced by Olson’s inclusion of biographical sketches of each theorist, Olson (2011) concedes that personal context influences a theory. I agree — my context of choice is the language of physics. Although I reframed personality theories to fit my context, I did so with a purpose: to probe deeper levels of truth and higher levels of abstraction of personality theory and of psychology in general. To that end, I called upon advances in the physical sciences to offer a lens.

The proposed theory suggests that all persons are free to determine some part of their personality, and that the determination will determine, in part, the personality of others and vice versa. There is an aspect of endless mutual becoming. As a future therapist, this theory suggests that I might use my freedom to take responsibility for endless mutual becoming and just be there — exhibiting Dasein (Olson, 2011, p. 504) — with others, co-creating reality.

I’d like to hear your opinion on this theory in the comments below.  Be honest and respectful.

References

Delprato, D. J., & Smith, N. W. (2009). Sketch of J. R. Kantor’s psychological interbehavioral field theory. The Psychological Record, 59(4), 671-678.

Kowalski, H. (2007, September 3). First Individual Diploid Human Genome Published By Researchers at J. Craig Venter Institute. Retrieved from http://www.jcvi.org/cms/press/press-releases/full-text/article/first-individual-diploid-human-genome-published-by-researchers-at-j-craig-venter-institute/

Olson, M. H. & Hergenhahn, B. R. (2011). An introduction to theories of personality. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

O’Neill, B. (2008). Relativistic quantum field theory: Implications for Gestalt therapy. Gestalt Review, 12(1), 7-23.

Read, T. (1997). Chaos, quanta and the implicate order. Can advances in mathematics and physics inform our work as psychotherapists? Group Analysis, 30(1), 67-80. doi:10.1177/0533316497301007

Smuts, J.C. (1927). Holism and Evolution: The Original Source of the Holistic Approach to Life. London, United Kingdom: Macmillan and Co., Limited.

Steiner, C. (1974). Scripts people live: Transactional analysis of life scripts. New York: Grove Press.

Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods, and findings. Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

[1] After all, research indicates that the therapeutic effects of different treatment methods espoused by different theories are small compared to the effects of therapist competency and allegiance (Wampold, 2001, p. 205). Accordingly, to be effective a therapist need not win the debate over the merits of various theories — although debating might indirectly amplify allegiance.

[2] Encapsulating the various theories of personality into single concept of a field may be viewed either as an oversimplification, or as a preservation that honors each theory as valid perspective from within the whole.

[3] For example, scientists have recently discovered the Higgs boson, and by extension the Higgs field, which permeates all space and to which all other (heretofore massless) particles couple, thus acquiring mass. Particle mass is a real and observable effect of the Higgs field.

[4] The universality of the basic personality field could be correlated to the observed 99.5% similarity of genetic material amongst human beings (Kowalski, 2007).

[5] The most common, albeit inhumane, allegory used to convey this notion is “Schrödinger’s cat.” If a cat in a box has equal chances of living or dying, then the wave function of the cat is an equal superposition of both “alive” and “dead.” Upon observation the wave function collapses into one of the two possible realities. This allegory also conveys the nature of quantum indeterminism — that a system exists as a set of potentialities until one is selected.

[6] For example, Freudian defense mechanisms (Olson, 2011, pp. 28–29, 34–39) Jungian types (p. 80–81), Adlerian safeguarding strategies (pp. 107–110), Horney’s adjustments (pp. 131–133), Erickson’s virtues (pp. 161–170), traits of Allport, Cattell and Eysenck (pp. 188–192, 226–233), Skinner’s learned behaviors (pp. 261–282), Buss’ evolutionarily-developed responses (pp. 362–391), Kelly’s construct systems or CPC cycle (pp. 413–414), or Maslow’s B-values (pp. 480–481).

[7] In terms of quantum mechanics, the “inner product” <Ψ₁|Ψ₂> of two final-state fields is the “transition amplitude” of one state (Ψ₁) to another (Ψ₂).

[8] To the extent that all matter originated from a singular point to the “Big Bang” at the time of creation, all matter is related. Therefore, the matter of all human bodies is related.