What is a person? What is the self? Formulations for a science of psychology.

Abstract

This article offers solutions to two historically unresolved subject matter problems in psychology: (a) What is a "person"? And, (b) what is the "self"? Part 1 of the article presents Peter Ossorio's (2006) Descriptive Psychologically based answer to the first of these questions, an answer that comprises a paradigm case formulation of the concept "person" itself, as well as a parametric analysis for describing individual persons. Part 2 of the article presents a new solution to the second question. The solution is a disarmingly simple one in which "self" or "I," consistent with actual usage, means simply and essentially "this person"-this holistically considered, embodied, conscious, deliberate actor that I intend when I use the terms "I" or "me" or "myself"-as opposed to "that person," the specific individual I intend when I say "he" or "she" or "herself." The ways in which this formulation (a) uniquely possesses an empirical grounding, (b) avoids many historical problems that have arisen in trying to delineate the nature of the self, and (c) integrates the field of self psychology, are all demonstrated. The article provides logical and empirical arguments in support of both of its formulations, as well as for the importance of the science of psychology possessing such formulations of its core subject matter.

Is psychology suffering from an epidemic of “contagion”? Moving from metaphors to theoretically derived concepts and methods in the study of social influences

“…Following the methodology of paradigm case formulation (Ossorio, 2006), we argue that the paradigmatic case for contagion is clearly the “biological model of the generation, transmission and course of various diseases” (Mitropoulos, 2012, p. 205). As explained by Bergner (2017), the “paradigm case” represents “an archetypal, indubitable [case] that captures central or core features of the concept” (p. 78). The essential elements of the paradigmatic case can be used to compare alternative phenomena, in order to determine whether they fit into the target class.…”

Persons and Genes. Is a Gene-Centered Evolutionary Psychology Compatible with a Person-Oriented Approach to Psychological Science?

“…Although persons, as a first approximation, can be defined as a variety of interactants that are intentional agents, it is likely that the nature of persons needs to be specified much more precisely than so, and various attempts have been made in that direction (e.g., Baker 2007;Bergner 2017;Bickhard 2017;Ossorio 2006;Stern 1938). Whatever criteria will turn out to be needed for this purpose, however, there seems to be no a priori reason to doubt that the capacities involved (e.g., for intentional action, self-reflection, communication, empathy, cooperation, etc.)…”

“…Strawson ( 1959 ) later came to a similar conclusion by arguing that the concept of a person is a primitive concept (i.e., a concept that cannot be analyzed further), which refers to a particular kind of individuals that have both mental and corporeal characteristics. Among present-day theoretical psychologists, Bergner ( 2017 , p. 83) argues that “the primary focus of the entire field of psychology is persons: their behavior, development, neural functioning, personality, emotion, intelligence, and more”, and Bickhard ( 2017 , p. 5) suggests that psychological science needs to be reformed in terms of the basic assumption that “persons are the loci of psychological phenomena.”…”

Análise Conceitual Da Expressão “Socioemocional” Em Artigos De Psicologia

“…Compreender a origem e o desenvolvimento de conceitos em Psicologia tem sido uma atribuição de áreas como a Psicologia Teórica e a Psicologia Filosófica (Bergner, 2017;Slaney & Racine, 2011). Ainda que relativamente restrita a esses meios, tal análise apresenta-se como um exercício epistemológico necessário para a compreensão de projetos científicos em períodos históricos variados.…”