These four groups are based on the notion that the reference groups with which individuals identify vary in scope and distance from the individual. This premise makes "psychosphere" (i.e. the analogy here is to levels of the earth's atmosphere) as relevant for cognitive and social psychology as it is to personality (i.e., individual differences) psychology. I would also like to take the opportunity here to note the distinction between individual differences psychology and a true psychology of personality. The latter seeks an understanding of the structure and dynamics of the psyche and a means by which to understand the inner workings of the individual psyche. This psychology grows out of indepth work (i.e., clinical or research) with individuals, whereas individual differences psychology begins with a trait or quality and seeks to assess quantitatively the extent to which this quality accounts for variability among individuals. Individual differences research is not concerned with individuals or with their psyches, but with traits, which are often treated as basic building blocks in a generic model of personality. While the aim is often the same as that of personality researchers, individual differences methodologies are not equipped to shed light on variance WITHIN individuals, only between them, and any generic model informed by (or extrapolated from) sources of between-individuals variance only is doomed to achieve no more than a mapping of the space between individuals. Unfortunately, practically all work performed in the so-called area of personality within academic departments of psychology qualifies as individual differences research only. Personality is dead, which explains how personality can and has been merged with social psychology into a concentration called social-personality psychology within the vast majority of universities.

My individual differences typology proposes that individuals can be understood in terms of the proximity and scope of the social construct with which they identify themselves. For illustrative purposes, I will apply my individual differences model to a group of university professors who, for the sake of this illustration, will be treated as if they actually varied. Now imagine if you will the following groups:

NATURE (PHENOMENAL) GROUP: These professors pursued a degree in psychology because they believed their lives and personalities were intrinsically tied to the topic of interest, be that topic sleep and dreams, stereotypes, self-esteem, or whetever else. In fact, because individual experience is the vehicle of their interest in psychology (i.e., because their interest derives from immediate, grass-roots, and often personal experience itself, the topics that interest these professors are often very concrete). If you sampled the interests among these professors, you will probably find more natural phenomena than social or statistical constructs. However, because the source of their interest is personal experience, these professors tend to answer only to their subject matter and resist professional guidelines which they view as unnatural incursions, arbitrary social fictions that threaten to undermine the purity of their work, the dignity and nature of the phenomena under study, and the feelings of self-actualization derived from the intrinsic relationship between themselves and the phenomenon. Their indifference to the professional culture is treated by other groups of professors as resistance. The personal source of the interest in psychology is dimly perceived by other faculty types as selfishness and arrogance and the intrinsic connection is dimly perceived as a sloppy or lazy noncompliance with the standards, i.e. with the precision and parsimony of the conventional methodology and with the widely accepted philosophy of science, in which objectivity is viewed as distance between scientist and subject.

THE DEPARTMENT OR UNIVERSITY: These professors identify with the organizational unit in which they are employed. Identification here is a more fluid than with the profession itself (which we will take up next), because while these professors may not view the phenomena under study (i.e., individual factors) as the overarching principle, the source of their inspiration and direction is still relatively experiential, growing out of the immediate day-to-day operations of their department, which includes immediate interpersonal interactions with faculty. Because these professors have physical access to those faculty who influence day-to-day operations, they can take an active role in shaping the policies and conventions that will shape them. These professors are thus often a dynamic mix of cooperative and competitive tendencies capable of fostering both harmonious and adversarial events.

THE PROFESSION OR SCIENCE OF PSYCHOLOGY, OR SCIENCE ITSELF: The previous group of professors identified with the organizational units by which they were employed. This level can be further differentiated by considering levels within the organization. For instance, a professor may identify with the department (e.g., Psychology), with the college (e.g., Arts & Sciences), and/or with the broader university (e.g., Iowa State). This next group of faculty identifies not with the organizations but with the institutions. Again, this source of identification can be differentiated by considering levels of the institution. The professor may identify with the profession of Psychology (i.e., represented by the APA, the consortium of APA-accredited universities, and other accrediting and accredited bodies). But the difference between the professors who identify with institutions and those who identify with organizations is that the former identify with an agency with which they do not have daily interaction. These professors are anonymous members of the institution rather than visible participants of the organization. These professors are defined by the policies and practices that have come to define them from a distance. While they are instantiations, embodiments, reflections, receptacles, or representatives of these policies and conventions, the professors do not view their role as passive. Not only do they believe their representation maintains the profession, but they also have adopted an enforcement role in which their attempts to root out noncompliance or non-representation is often achieved by rooting out the noncompliant peers or students themselves. These professors often horde subscriptions and affiliations. While they are the most vocal proponents of harmony and solidarity, their trigger-happy or penetrating diagnosis of nonconformity often precipitates corrective proceedings. They perceive these proceedings as constructive, mediating, and consensus-building, and thus react with indignation of their own to the indignation of those peers or students publically identified as falling short of the standards for professionalism or collegiality. It quickly becomes a catch-22.

NATURE (NOUMENAL): NATURE (NOUMENAL): You will probably not find any psychology professors in this group. These individuals view themselves as infinitesmal parts of a grand design inaccessible to direct experience and impervious to rational understanding. While this sounds like a spiritual experience, it need not be a religious one, but one that is purely metaphysical or philosophical. It is one thing for a professor of psychology, who uses statistics as a tool, to believe in the importance of numbers. But it is quite another thing for the professor to speak of people as a product of numbers in a cosmic paint-by-numbers portrait. It is one thing for a professor of psychology to speak of the brain as the source of perception and behavior and a method for their study, but it is another for a professor to wax poetic about the brain as synonymous with our universe. So while professors are rare in this group, we do in fact see glimpses of this kind of identification among them. This group actually shares many qualities in common with those on the opposite end of the triangle, in a way suggesting that the broad and narrow ends of the triangle can be tied together into adjacent points in a circle. These professors, like those who identify with the personal experience of the phenomena, identify with nature. However, unlike those who identify with the personal experience of the phenomena, these professors identify with that aspect of nature that cannot be experienced. The psychology professor who attempts to reduce all mental activity and behavior to the workings of neurons is one such example. Another example is the psychology professor who treats the proper subject of psychology as synonymous with the most sophisticated state of its methodology, i.e. the empirical distillation of generic laws or factors from a statistical survey or analysis of data from experimental design. Diagnostic of this attitude in one professor was his statement to his class of 300 plus Introduction to Psychology students, "if you want to study human nature, read Ann Landers; we study psychological law." For such a professor, variability experienced at the phenomenal or individual level is just a means to an end, and the fact these individuals are exceptions to the distilled laws is dismissed as unimportant. So there is no question these professors are working in the realm of the metaphysical (despite their fallacious belief that their own materialism acquits them of the metaphysical charge). Despite a keen interest in individuals, those professors interested in broad meta-theories of the structure and dynamics of the psyche (inferred from individual material) may also fall in this group if they treat certain realms of the unconscious -- an irrational source of data in dreams and intuitions -- as inaccessible and yet as the primary organizing factor. Such professors qualify for membership in this category insofar as their interest is in the model itself and insofar as the model is removed from individual or immediate experience. Individuals in this group may also speak of a contribution from synchronicity or serendipity and, if they are operating within a science or profession, may seek to affirm or legitimize such contributions through rational or philosophical discourse. They thus be prone to contemplation and reflection of material similar to that taken up by theoretical physicists, mathematicians, epistemologists, or theologians.

Now that I have discussed the four sources of identification, I should probably mention that I have assigned terms to describe individuals who identify with each of these domains. Those whose source of identification is nature-phenomenal I have dubbed "subjectivists." Those who source of identification is the organization I have dubbed "sectarians." Those whose source of identification is the institution I have dubbed "collectivists." And those whose source of identification is nature-noumenal I have dubbed "cosmicists." Below is a very abstract account of each of the types.

-->The Subjective Universe

The Subjectivists' fundamental concern is their inner life and that part of their personal experience that bares the imprint of – or association with – that inner world. That is, the central concern of Subjectivists is the Self and that part of the world within reach of its unfolding. They expect that the world will resist their attempts to remain faithful to their natures and to fulfill objectives that remain pure reflections of themselves. Subjectivists impart themselves in their work, and the work itself may serve as a process of self-discovery for them; and for these reasons, the Subjectivist will find that others object to personal, non-pragmatic, and possibly arcane elements in their work.

Alienation remains at the core of the Subjectivist lifestyle. The Subjectivists appetite for freedom constantly places them at risk for maladjustment, as they may be cited for an inability or unwillingness to meet external requirements. Subjectivists lack allies in THIS world, but feel loyal to a more worthy imperative. They enjoy recourse to a pattern and principle inherent in nature that they consider more stable and foundational than the world created by others with different interests entirely. The world outside them always appears somewhat superficial and variable to them.

Subjectivists derive a sense of validity from life's narrative qualities rather than from logical or factual support. Subjectivists attempt to capture in their life the essence of an idea and actualize its incarnation in the imperfect world. And while it appears to everyone – including the Subjectivists – that their behavior is idiosyncratic, it is paradoxically also an expression of that common substrate – that deep structure – that remains embedded but hidden in the fabric of life. Thus in their behavior or in their plight they wish others can glean an obscure glimpse of so elemental that it could hardly retain its purity in the social and material world.

Subjectivists are content to push on, feeling as though their lives are works of worth that are doomed to rejection for their failure to satisfy commercial requirements. If they are not accepted or successful, they feel it is because they refuse to allow their actions and choices to be determined by a desire for profit and mass appeal. And so the struggle they feel is that they refuse to belong to an economy. While most persons withhold an element of themselves from their behaviors to meet the requirements of a situation, Subjectivists look for opportunities to embellish their signature.

Subjectivists work within private moments to differentiate their inner lives to the point where it requires considerable effort to suppress the Self. A person who makes the acquaintance of a Subjectivist may report to a third party an "aura" or "presence" to this person. Such disregard for the requirements of a situation reflect the Subjectivists' lack of interest in those aspects of the environment that "cannot provide evidence for their own position" and that "do not beckon their opinion." While many Subjectivists think of their lives as a film, they would not make a professional actor, because the only role they are suited for is their own.

Conflict, disagreement, or failure does not invalidate the character or standpoint of Subjectivists, whose unmitigated expression of their unconventional views frequently incurs consequences. Subjectivists work on their personalities or philosophies as if they were fine art, and they are unwilling to allow the arbitrary and mongrel elements of the imperfect world to disrupt their internal consistency. Subjectivists regard behavior as the natural extension of their most personal perspective; and they deem the slightest compromise or omission as weakness and misrepresentation of the highest order. Subjectivists prefer to avoid altogether situations in which their position is irrelevant or in which they believe there are too many threats to their integrity. Subjectivists demand of a situation that it offers expression or development to their personality or perspective. Subjectivists may even involve themselves in situations in which they are likely to be denied or thwarted, providing the opposition can incite them to mobilize their inner resources and incite their motivation. No one like the Subjectivist can find validation and dignity in failure. But in persecution lies the seeds of arrogance. Subjectivists may grow so accustomed to failure and so addicted to a sense of victimization, that they sabotage themselves out of fear of success. Some Subjectivists believe that to find a place in the world is to lose the world within themselves -- a world in which they were King.

Subjectivists remain faithful to the idea that direct, personal experience is the basis of all truth and can never be deficient. For Subjectivists, direct personal experience is the SUM of individual life and the best predictor of its future course. But the source of strength for the Subjectivists is also the source of weakness. The Subjectivists attempt to capture in their behavior a deeper level of existence, but have only their own PERSONAL experience with which to work once they have shut out everything they have labeled a diversion of frivolity. Subjectivists may even use “my experience” to justify actions and decisions that contradict common sense, authority, tradition, or other concrete circumstances or data. And they may even choose to cite as valid evidence the impulses, coincidences, or intuitions that most people would discount as random or negligible. Subjectivists treat all phenomena with origins in personal experience as real and believe that such phenomena capture the essence of their perspective. This is the only way they feel they create in themselves a product of ample purity. To accept on faith the validity of data that is contrary or indifferent to the facts personally experienced in individual life constitutes a betrayal. Furthermore, there is little of interest to Subjectivists that lies outside the inner life or beyond the direct personal experience of the external world.

Subjectivists may be ascetics by choice or by consequence; in any event, they do feel a necessity to ally themselves with others who share their opinions of the status quo. But they undermine their own desire -- or render it unlikely – with their demand for purity and individuality. Moreover, the idiom of everyday chit-chat may be inadequate for discovering those who share in some aspects of their unique vision. Given that a certain depth and detail of thinking does not readily lend itself to casual expression, Subjectivists tend to fall prey to – if not facilitate -- the fallacy that others do not experience similar or deep thoughts. For this reason, Subjectivists, who may have the qualities others value in a long-term companion, have difficulty making acquaintances and starting relationships. Perhaps their distaste for the artifice and arbitrariness of the social life – which they can project at times with hauteur – is the result of their frustration that THEY cannot see through it the way others can. It is ironic that people who claim to live in accordance with principles of depth cannot recognize one of their own through the surface variability of life. And they may be perfectly aware of this – of the fact that while there are others who share their penchant for purity and individuality, it remains hidden to them beneath that individuality.

But because of their insistence on uniqueness, Subjectivists find themselves drawn to the company of people completely different from them. A friend who is yet very different can help the Subjectivist to delimit him- or herself. But because of the differences in personality – and due to the Subjectivists lack of social stamina -- these friendships are often short-lived.

To Subjectivists, others are meaningful insofar as they serve as characters in their story and provide an interesting twist or confirming piece of evidence to the plot. However, they are less likely than any other group to cherish their own relationships and friendships. Subjectivists may be equipped to rationalize the loss of a friendship as an unexpected chapter in the development of the storyline; and those who currently serve as friends may be cherished no more meaningfully than enemies or those plagued by indifference.

Subjectivists do not seek success the same way others do. In a world of musical chairs, Subjectivists create their own seats, i.e. positions of uniqueness for them to occupy. They will not compete with others on someone else’s terms. However, it is unlikely others will recognize or even comprehend the positions that Subjectivists have invented for themselves from superior creativity.

The Sectarian Universe

Sectarians exemplify beliefs and behaviors emblematic of the more traditional notion of individualism. Other people and the outside world clearly figure into the goals of Sectarians, which is not the case for Subjectivists. It is even possible that "other people" and the "outside world" ARE the goals of Sectarians. Sectarians seek relationships and seek participation in social groups, but they prefer their groups small so that their roles will be more vital -- more invaluable -- more tangible -- and the group itself -- less anonymous -- more reflective of their own personalities and impact. For these reasons, protest groups and groups that oppose the status quo are ideal vehicles for the pure Sectarian. Sectarians seek to define themselves in interactions with others, which usually involve a mixture of cooperative and competitive efforts. Unlike Subjectivists, for whom individuality is a matter of quality and substance, Sectarians set themselves apart vis-à-vis quantitative differences, i.e. by demonstrating "more" or "less" of certain skills or characteristics. Sectarians are not only perfectly willing to play the games, they have an almost inexhaustible capacity for them. So while Subjectivists are masterful in their ability to find an empty space in the personality landscape (which may involve re-defining that landscape to create space where none exists), Sectarians are masterful in their ability to earn reputations for possessing more of the standard qualities in landscape as it is traditionally and popularly defined. While Subjectivists may use their private time to delve into their own inner life, Sectarians use their privacy to mobilize their own inner resources so that they are ready for social interaction.

In short, Sectarians want to make a difference not in THEIR world, but in THE world. They seek a connection to a world very different from the one within them – the one within them used resourcefully to achieve purposes in the external world. Sectarians for this reason are SOCIAL creatures, as well as individualists, and people are often attracted to them because they appear to possess a depth of personality and a purpose. The consummate Sectarian is extraordinarily charismatic, and they may possess just enough self-awareness themselves to be able to empathize with others and help others feel personally understood and validated.

And Sectarians have an uncanny ability to understand the way of the world. They understand the system and its rules that others have created, and they are able to move more nimbly within it than the creators themselves. This is what makes the Sectarian the perfect leader. And the Sectarian possesses the patience and temperance required to wait for the opportunity to assume a leadership role. The Sectarians, while possessing the capacity for cynicism and criticism, can live with these even while they enjoy the positive aspects of the group and while they harness considerable energy from their participation in the group. Unlike the Subjectivist, who cannot live with ambivalence and who has a knack for avoiding or eliminating it, the Sectarian shows no aversion to ambivalence or ambiguity. The Sectarians find verve in the surface variety of life and feel no compulsion to avoid it or explain it away. But Sectarians are participants first and members second. They are still too individual to identify with a group or institution. In fact, just as they are capable of suppressing their private thoughts and personal views in public, so are they capable of breaching their commitments to others. Their roles as leaders are usually short-lived, and usually shared with similar roles in other groups. This variety inherent in the nature of the Sectarians is often puzzling and frustrating to others.

People who attempt to get close to Sectarians often find an illusion. While Sectarians clearly possess the capacity for self-awareness, their inclination to self-awareness is limited to a form of social opportunism or pragmatism. Furthermore, the inner life of the Sectarian exhibits as much flux as the outer life, with Sectarians unable to focus or sustain any one particular thought. All this is toxic to a relationship. While Sectarians are quite adept at making acquaintances and starting relationships, they often have difficulty maintaining or developing them.

I have personally witnessed many examples of a symbiosis in which a same-sex Subjectivist and Sectarian prefer one another’s company. Each is made to feel special and needed by the other by what they are able to provide that the other lacks. And for as long as the need exists, the “other” will seem like an incarnation of energy and mystery. Each expands the universe of the other, but because the relationship is based on deficiency and built on ignorance, the short-term fix -- the effects of which may resemble a drug -- does not last. Once each sees through the effects to the nature of the other, a familiarity sets in that breeds contempt. Mystery turns annoyance and energy into exhaustion. These are typically short-lived relationships.

The Collective Universe

Collectivists are governed primarily by a belief in the effectiveness and benevolence of the society's institutions. Collectivists identify with a Tradition, Institution, or Community, which they allow to pattern their lives and inform their decisions. The geographic borders of the Collectivist universe can be as narrow as the nation of citizenship and as wide as the Earth itself. But Collectivists may not define their universe geographically if their source of identity is membership in an institution such as Science or Religion or in a heritage such as Race or Ethnicity. The only defining characteristics of a Collectivist universe is that it (a) is broader than the personal or immediate experience of the individual; and (b) is a universe of experience that has been recorded and can be referenced in historical documents.

Collectivists plot themselves within the coordinates of the human and societal world. The primary issues include (1) understanding humanity and themselves as a human being; and (2) understanding society and themselves as citizens. This is pretty much the limit of the Collectivist self-interest. Collectivists prefer to dissolve themselves in the social groups in which they are no more than demographic members, i.e. statistics. They appear to non-Collectivists to blow in the wind, to follow a course dictated not by personal ambitions (i.e., Sectarians) or vocations (i.e., Subjectivists), but by objective circumstances, data, and traditions. If they measure individual persons at all, it is with respect to the extent to which persons serve as an instantiation or surrogate for the categories to which they belong by virtue of characteristics they have not willfully chosen. Persons may also be measured by (1) the ability to cope with (and adapt to) the exigencies and contingencies of everyday life, i.e. those shared by others in their group; (2) by the ability to work the system, i.e. by a familiarity with the rules and requirements; or by (3) public service. Collectivists believe a full accounting of their identity can be made in terms of their membership in a social group, and they believe that some individuals, like themselves, can excel in their ability to embody the principles valued by the majority. Collectivists believe that the system would function ideally if its individuals represented to the best of their ability the roles and positions to which they were assigned.

Collectivists value harmony and belonging and, for this reason, may view the belief in individual differences as problematic or may view individual differences themselves as arbitrary or illusory. Collectivists attempt to explain the fine points of an individual's nature in terms of the principles which invariably govern a given situation, human condition, or typology.

Unlike Sectarians, who view themselves as "participants" without necessarily feeling like "members," Collectivists feel like members without viewing themselves as participants. Collectivists are likely to maintain a number of affiliations, but their involvement, while deeply felt, is likely to occur more in the form of an anonymous identification. Since Collectivists seek from institutions an abstract source of representation, Collectivists are dependent upon Sectarians to assume more active, productive, and concrete roles within the group. (This relationship can be strained at times, for reasons that should be obvious). Collectivists may appear on the mailing list, subscribe to the professional publication, and attend the national convention, but their actual work in the group is limited to coveting the most visible and influential position within it. The skills and qualities of the Collectivist can be summarized by the ability to represent and to be represented. This does not mean, however, that Collectivists cannot serve in certain administrative capacities, where they exhibit brilliant flashes of inflexibility. They appear to have no personal views or qualities beneath the carefully crafted mission-statements, policies, and rituals that they mime passionately as if they were their own but for which the Collectivist probably appointed a committee. Collectivists are adept at identifying with what they did not create. And while their enforcement of group norms and group harmony appears passionate, the Collectivists’ role in the group is vulnerable to events that occur outside it. The Collectivists spread their membership across a number of affiliations in much the same way the Sectarian spreads his participation. This means that the birth of a child, the death of a distant cousin, or a call from Corporate or some other office is sufficient inducement to the Collectivist to abandon his or her current roles to others. The Collectivist seeks through variety what the Subjectivist seeks in singularity, the essence of a reality. But Collectivists seek it through a number of affiliations, adding up to a representative sampling of the social and human enterprises and endeavors.

But there IS a clear pecking order to groups within a society. Those smaller groups – or factions – that are synonymous with activity and that do not represent a broad spectrum of interests – are avoided as counter-representational. This is the paradox of the Collectivist. The Collectivists seek a broad following but while they appreciate the diversity of membership they despise the diversity of ideas and any activity that does follow from the leadership or embody a consensus of the members. Collectivists seem to bask in the common denominator that underlies all people. A sense of community or fulfillment of obligation is the reason why Collectivists engage in activities. In a 1992 pilot questionnaire, Collectivists supported the statement that "the greatest benefit of attending church is to experience a sense of community with those from whom I am normally separated in everyday life" or the "fulfillment of an obligation to the family or the church." In addition, Collectivists reported more so than any other group "that there is a growing need to re-affirm societal values in the face of special interest groups" and that "order is best maintained/promoted by defending the values that have been softened by minority propaganda." Collectivists oppose attempts by individuals or minority groups to eschew accountability and to splinter human nature into an indefinite number of social fictions.

Collectivists cultivate an understanding of the commonality of life so that they will not have to understand or manage each experience anew. This is similar to the Subjectivist, but the opposite means of achieving it frequently bring these two groups into direct confrontation. In changing times -- which place undue stress on Collectivists -- they enjoy recourse to the fundamental denominator -- to the core elements that remain immutable and impervious to individualism.

While Sectarians work out their goals in privacy prior to the social interaction, the Collectivist thinks by means of the social interaction itself. Another way to phrase this (which may reflect a Sectarian or Subjectivist bias) would be to say that the social situation thinks for the Collectivist. There is a formal machinery at work in the behavior of the Collectivist, which is despised by the Subjectivist and ridiculed by the Sectarian for its de-individuating effects.

The Cosmic Universe

We have now reached that point in the spectrum where the word "individual" becomes a pure linguistic convention and conceptual misnomer. Pure Cosmicists subscribe to the view that the "self" is an illusory, arbitrary, or artificial construct that owes its meaning to the limitations of the perceptual world. Cosmicists believe that individual persons are only a point of reference in a universe whose most worthwhile or fundamental units are too large, too small, or too immaterial to see. Cosmicists may concede the inscrutability of their principles or energies, but they do not believe this is any reason for them to abandon the true worth of the universe for something arbitrary or artificial. Cosmicists will continue to invest themselves in the myths and mysteries that point to a transcendental reality that cannot readily be expressed in the finite structures of our conscious world. To pure Cosmicists, the languages, institutions, and possibly even the objects of our world are at best hieroglyphs that hint at the nature of a universal infrastructure, whether it be spiritual or physical in nature. Cosmicists are not distressed by their lack of answers, because they value an understanding of the questions and the simple clues that support their belief that THIS world is not the ONLY world. Cosmicists believe that as individuals they are parts of a whole they cannot see -- that they are part of something much greater than themselves and, unlike the Subjectivist, may not believe they as individuals are the THAT for the sake of which the whole functions. One plausible manifestation of Cosmicism may be a comfort with the notion of final death, i.e. that upon death the consciousness and integrity of the self is dissolved as the body's energies are recycled into the physical universe. Another plausible manifestation of Cosmicism may be the belief in an Afterlife in which the self maintains awareness and personality. Ideas of interest to Cosmicists may be Fate, Faith, Otherworldliness, Eternity, Infinity, Matter & Energy, Spirit & Soul, Light & Darkness, Mathematical Formulae, etc. Cosmicism is not to be confused with science or religiosity, as Cosmicists aim to capture the essence of the spiritual or transcendental, the purity of which may be lost to finite institutions which are also beholden to principles of a sociological and psychological nature.

Like Subjectivists, Cosmicists value experience as evidence for (and information about) a hidden transcendental reality, but while Subjectivists damn this world for the absence of – or contempt for – this reality, the Cosmicists tend to believe it is alive and well and working within everyone – not just within Subjectivists – and it is working within groups and objects as well as persons – and it is working within these entities whether they are aware of it or not. And while Subjectivists work to discover and maintain the integrity of a Self, the Cosmicist is likely to find such behavior excessive, artificial, or exclusionary. Cosmicists do not distinguish between a personal and impersonal experience and, while they value coincidence, they also feel the transcendental reality is very much at work in common and even normative events. In short, Cosmicists seek to understand the relationships among all things. Cosmicists are more open to possibilities – and even while they feel that tolerance and temperance for ALL things is helpful to understanding the reality – the reality is also expressing itself through intolerance and intemperance. Nothing exists outside the reality and outside the script. So while Cosmicists claim to be truth-seekers, the irony is that they are most adept at pointing out what they call the illusions in finite living, such as the illusion of personal control and perspective, such as a Self and the notion of hypocrisy. And yet the Cosmicist will not put down the parts in favor of the whole – will not condemn the illusions – because they must be in their view as necessary as they are inevitable. Cosmicists make excellent friends to persons of all other types, particularly due to their openness and their lack of self-focus. However, Cosmicists can get into trouble in relationships if they require their friends to show the same tolerance and temperance in the face of hardship. Cosmicists will claim to understand someone’s grievance, but they may be unlikely to intervene on a friend’s behalf. Even if they are willing to intervene, it is at this time when the Cosmicist philosophy becomes most annoying to a friend. Cosmicists are like Subjectivists less likely to be found in group settings. However, unlike the Subjectivist, the Cosmicist is not aversed to groups and may enjoy the role of witness or bystander. The lack of a Self – or the lack of a Self the Cosmicist is bent on defending – appeals to the Collectivist.

The Text of Interview

MOYER: "So let's talk about your typology. The one you call Psycho-Cosmology.”

EHRENFELS: “For lack of a better term. I had trouble coming up with a term that captured the nature of the principle or factor by which these four groups are partitioned.”

MOYER: “What does someone do with a theory like this? How can it be put to use?"

EHRENFELS: "I don't quite know yet. That must sound a bit odd, considering it's been around since '92. I remember what inspired the theory – and that was a general disenchantment with the individualism-collectivism literature. I found the whole idea that persons or cultures are either individualist or collectivist to be a rather rude and boring simplification. Not to mention sociological and grossly inadequate as a psychological account. But the truth of the matter is -- that I didn't know what to do with my theory then -- and I don't know quite what to do with it now. I am convinced of its worth, and yet strangely I'm not compelled to think of ways others can benefit from it. But then -- I am a Subjectivist."

MOYER: "I was going to get around to asking you that."

EHRENFELS: "Yeah, I would have to classify myself as a Subjectivist. You really have to wonder with these typologies whether their authors can do justice equally -- or at all -- to each of the types within the classification scheme -- when the author himself can be classified within it. Someone suggested I post the questionnaire on the site so visitors can complete it -- you know -- as a way of continuing the research. For some reason, I couldn't get excited about the idea. And after some reflection, I realized I have about zero interest in cataloging people and even less interest in ascertaining the formal psychometric properties of the questionnaire."

MOYER: "So then why post the typology at all? What DO you think is its worth?"

EHRENFELS: "I like the principles that underwrite the typology because I believe they can prove functional in helping us understand relationships. I like the fact the types overlap. Each type shares some quality with the type above and below it in the typology as it is drawn up in the diagram. Even Subjectivists and Cosmicists -- which are at opposite ends of the spectrum -- seem to share some qualities -- which suggests to me that the spectrum wraps around and can be drawn as a circle rather than a line. This sense of gradation -- this continuity -- suggests the possibility that what I have called ‘types’ up to now may also be phases in some psychological cycle."

MOYER: "Cycle."

EHRENFELS: "Like the systole and diastole of the heart -- a life rhythm. Under this scenario, someone who is typed as a ‘Sectarian’ would simply be a person who spends the most time in that part of the cycle or for whom personality development or life progress occurs predominantly during that phase. Or perhaps the predominant phase even has a way of accenting the other phases, so that a ‘Sectarian’ progresses through a Sectarian form of Subjectivism, a Sectarian form of Collectivism, and a Sectarian form of Cosmicism."

MOYER: "Kind of like a psychological Zodiac. You know -- when an Aries enters a Taurus month."

EHRENFELS: "I like that analogy. But this is purely speculation at this point. I am inclined to believe in the developmental model because it takes under advisement the complex and contradictory nature of the individual. But other models are also equipped to address this. Like a structural model that relies on opposing states of conscious and unconscious. Jung's theory of the psychological functions -- sensation, thinking, feeling, and intuition -- stipulates that it is useful to identify the one MOST differentiated function, which is under conscious control, the one LEAST differentiated function, which resides in the unconscious as an independent locus of control and which in an occasional coup e' tat colors behaviors that are not under conscious control, and a secondary function which is under PARTIAL conscious control and supports the differentiated function. Well, I am inclined to think of each of these four types in Psycho-Cosmology as basic human functions which are also developed to various extents within each person and occupy some position of power within the pecking-order. And this is what interests me most about the types above, not the types themselves, but the profiles – how much a person is an expression of each of the types and how that changes from day to day or week to week or even year to year. I have even toyed with a revision of this model to include what I liken to anti-matter in physics. The anti-types. If I developed a questionnaire such that each item asks a person to agree OR DISAGREE with a statement, or if I treated 1 thru 3 on a 7 points scale as if they were negative values, then a person can be conceived not only as ‘low’ in Collectivism, for example, but ‘anti-collectivism.’ In other words, I would like to allow for a means to describe how a person can be determined by an OPPOSITION to a principle. And if we see anti-collectivism for example coupled with pro-subjectivism, we may be able to understand that person’s current situation – and possibly even his history – much more fully. I also like this idea because the expression of compensatory unconscious attitudes can often take the form of extreme ideology – extreme attractions and repulsions. I’d like to be able to conceptualize this data in that framework."

MOYER: "You certainly seem to have your work cut out for you -- with all these theoretical possibilities."

EHRENFELS: "Most psychological researchers are indifferent to these kind of theoretical subtleties. And to be perfectly honest -- the more I enjoy engaging Psycho-Cosmology theoretically -- the less interested I become in the questionnaire as a formal instrument. One interesting tidbit I noticed about human nature is that theory and methodology tend to be indifferent to one another, such that a person who is skilled and interested in theory is usually unskilled and disinterested in methodology, and vice-versa. And this seems to make perfect sense to me, as theory really doesn't lend itself to methodology. The problem in our field is that we attempt to force the two into a symbiosis and demand from each researcher that he or she cultivates theoretical and methodological skills. But we seem to ignore the fact the two often conflict. I am referring here to some problems I would bring down on my head should I decide to validate this typology psychometrically. First of all, the psychologists confuse validating a theory with validating the instrument used to measure it. Regardless of how the statistics ruled on my questionnaire, the statistics say nothing about how valid my typology is. For example, let's say I perform a factor analysis on the results of 200 completed questionnaires and learned that the items which share a common variance are not the items I theoretically grouped as Sectarian items, Collectivist items, etcetera. In other words, what if the analysis suggested a different grouping?"

MOYER: "In other words, what if one or more items you designated as a measure of Sectarianism do not fall in the same group as the other items you designated as a measure of Sectarianism."

EHRENFELS: "Correct. Now if this were my dissertation project, I would be required to perform a factor analysis on the data from the questionnaire. But the problem is that I do not seek to type people based on this theory. In fact, if the theory is a model of a developmental process, then the most I can expect to capture of every person is a best possible type, or as I mentioned earlier, on in which a person is accented by a particular stage. But no questionnaire based on a theory that taps such a process will produce perfect or even close-to-perfect factor loading and coefficients. Don't get me wrong, the internal consistency coefficients for each of my four types may be fairly high -- like .70 -- but in a factor analysis the four types may not emerge in the four groups of items that best fit the data. The data may suggest a modification or even an overhaul of my typology so that I have a more psychometrically valid classification scheme. But then -- the primary purpose of my theory is not to classify -- it is not to catalogue people. Nor is it to produce the most psychometrically sound instrument. I would need another way to evaluate my typology as a developmental model, and no standard statistical tool may exist for that purpose."

MOYER: "So the standard statistical methods are not suited to all purposes."
EHRENFELS: "This is true. The problem is that the statistical methods have forced us into a standard set of purposes. I would be discouraged from pursuing such a developmental model because, even if it DOES lend itself to statistical evaluation, it probably does not lend itself to a particular statistical method with which my colleagues feel comfortable. It may require a method of my own creation or a combination of methods -- and then you get into dangerous territory -- when your co-workers debate whether you can adapt or combine these methods in ways that do not compromise or violate certain testing principles. And in my opinion -- when this happens -- you have to give the theory rather than the method the benefit of the doubt. You can't systematically exclude certain ideas on the basis of the fact that Statistics doesn't like them. Of course, I am wary of Statistics as it is. We place our trust in Statistics as if it somehow lent mathematical properties to our ideas, when in fact, Statistics has nothing to do whatsoever with our ideas. Statistics is a tool -- an independent arbiter -- a set of decision rules that determine whether we can say the data supports our theory. In order to make our theory test-able with Statistics, we need to derive hypotheses on the basis of our theory. As predictions, hypotheses are treated as surrogates of the theory itself within our experimental situation. The problem is -- especially if you work with broad theories -- there are many possible predictions based on your theory. Your theory predicts a general outcome -- which can take on many forms within any individual life. The theory describes in abstract terms the common theme across these individuals. Now some people argue that theories this broad are really not so useful since it is the aim of psychology to predict and control behavior with high specificity. But I contend -- and I am not alone here -- that it is also the aim of psychology to understand behavior -- to assign meaning to it -- and that this is only possible with broad theories that are not completely test-able in a laboratory setting in which all individuals are treated the same way. The aim of psychology is to understand individual diversity -- not to ignore it. Prediction and control theories -- which are very small theories that are almost indistinguishable from hypotheses -- seek the psychological laws that apply to all people and thus are indifferent to diversity. Most psychological researchers do not understand this value of theory -- and if you ask them to tell you what the difference is between a theory and a hypothesis -- they are unable to make sense of the question. These researchers have allowed Statistics to become the driving force for the research. Now to me -- Statistics should play a much smaller role. Now if a phenomenon did possess mathematical properties -- and I am looking for such properties in dreams -- if the mathematics was intrinsic to the phenomenon -- in other words -- if the phenomenon itself was ordered quantitatively -- I would certainly be interested. But Statistics lies outside the phenomenon entirely and is imported as a decision rule to test our theory of the phenomenon. The effects of this process are too profound on a theory intended to bring understanding. It requires we design an experiment with conditions that can be measured to produce data in a form we can analyze statistically to test hypotheses that are predictions. There is too much in this process that is irrelevant to -- and that can potentially distort -- my theory. Too much of my resources as a researcher are wasted on a Statistics-centered research process that is irrelevant. And it is unfortunate that my theories are judged on the basis of their relevance to this process -- and my abilities as a researcher are also judged this way."

MOYER: "This is a subject we seem to hit a lot. And I understand why it may be most relevant here, because the use of the questionnaire methodology has become almost one with measurement."

EHRENFELS: "I mean -- come on. The problem is that whenever you commit to the use of Statistics, as the field of Psychology wholeheartedly does, you disenfranchise theory altogether. Now on the surface that seems to strike people as reasonable if it means the facts -- the data -- take precedence. But in too many cases, the fact itself IS the theory, and the theory is never really given a fair hearing. First, in a factor analysis, the new types do not invalidate the old ones. It only means that the individuals in the sample from which I extracted the data do not subscribe to -- or know about -- my typology. Regardless of what other typology -- what other groups -- the data may suggest -- the fact remains that a person who supports each of the statements in my proposed Sectarian group remains a Sectarian by definition. If I alter the composition of my groups, in all likelihood I will end up with a theory -- with a typology -- that makes no sense to me -- or that holds no interest for me -- and that may lack some of the benefits of my original typology -- such as continuity among the types. I am not inclined to conduct research for publication because I know there are certain things journal editors and co-workers want to see in published research -- whether they belong there or not. The use of factor analysis has short-circuited many great typologies and robbed the researcher of his or her intellect and freedom to think. If there is a way theory and data can come together, I assure you -- THIS is NOT it. Data has usurped theory and done so wrongly. I could even take this one step further and still be on solid philosophical ground when I say that even an instance in which things do not group together in nature the way they do in the mind of the theorist does not invalidate the theory. Theories can recombine data in ways to solve interesting problems. Is that not what we ask of our chimpanzees in the Gestalt learning experiments? There WILL BE people out there who will score anywhere from low to high on any one of the four scales I developed to measure the four types. Regardless of whether these items load the way the theory predicts for a statistical analysis. And the meaning of those high and low scores remain as they were defined from the beginning: a person who affirms these items can be described as a person who affirmed these items. The items remain descriptive of the person under any factor analytic scenario. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!"

MOYER: "So then Psychology has been…"

EHRENFELS: "Psychology is un-intellectual if not anti-intellectual. It seems to equate validity with the appearance of Science -- a fact is not a fact unless it has been through the spanking machine. If they gave credence to my point of view, they would feel it was like admitting that everything goes. Even if they did say I was right and my theory remains untouched by unfriendly facts, they would argue that it is the business of psychology to produce psychological facts and psychological laws."

MOYER: "Do you think Psychologists fall in any particular type?"

EHRENFELS: "If my experience is any indication -- and after six schools I believe my acquaintances are wide enough to be representative -- I think the clear majority are Collectivists and the remainder Sectarians. Subjectivists and Cosmicists are not represented. I do expect these two types to predominate in any profession and I believe they constitute the majority of personalities in the population. Personally, I think it would have been healthier for the field if Sectarians outnumbered Collectivists, but when you are neither, like myself, you are antagonized by the ambitious and self-serving careerism of Sectarians and the doctrinairism of Collectivists. My typology is important here, regarding the distinction between the two. I think you need to know when you are dealing with a self-serving careerist and when you are dealing with a doctrinairist. They seem to know each other fairly well, but Subjectivists like myself can get into trouble mistaking one for another or glossing over the difference between them."

MOYER: "What about the characters in your book? Were they written to embody any of these types?"

EHRENFELS: "To a certain extent. Anton is predominantly a Cosmicist and Matthew a Subjectivist. Their significant others, Aniela and Angela, are probably fairly balanced among the four types, which means they have few vices -- few character flaws -- in the book. But on the other hand, I do believe the characters of these two women would have been more developed if they were created as incarnation of one or more of these types. I was conflicted about that. The majority of the characters are either raving and insipid Collectivists or flaming Sectarians. The Sectarians are ambitious but mostly in an acquiescing way, as they compete for professional amenities by adjusting to the doctrines laid down by the Collectivists. I would say the students are Sectarians and Collectivists and the professors and administrators mainly Collectivists. To underscore the importance and the alienation of Cosmicists and Subjectivists, I created just one character for each type. That left me with only the balanced personality, which by my definition is rare and healthy. I made Aniela and Angela balanced types. They are in the unique position to improve on the righteousness of their husbands with the virtue of temperance and moderation."

MOYER: "Does this typology in any way overlap with Experiography?"

EHRENFELS: "Yes. I would say Cosmicists are motivated primarily by the purpose of Transcendence, Subjectivists by the purpose of Self-Actualization, Sectarians and Collectivists by both Adjustment and Self-Assertion."

MOYER: "Perhaps your questionnaires will bare this out?"

EHRENFELS: "Perhaps. But then I'd like to point out that there is a part of Psychology -- I would say the center or core of the psyche -- which can never be tapped by questionnaires -- by psychometric test batteries. This is our unconscious -- our capacity for symbolism -- and other material within our infrastructure that unfolds in our personal and shared history. A questionnaire assesses how a person thinks and feels consciously -- though I will be the first to point out that many of these values are conditioned by unconscious material. To determine a person is introverted based on the MBTI may not only be inaccurate, but even if accurate, it does not portray the dialectic interplay between the conscious attitude of introversion and the unconscious attitude of extraversion. The theory on which the MBTI and the introversion/extraversion typology is based is that of CG Jung. And his depiction of the psyche is one of a dynamic interplay between opposites. He mentioned that it is often difficult to determine from a person's behavior or conscious choices -- which often exhibit both introverted and extraverted tendencies -- which is the dominant and which the inferior attitude. It requires more than a few questionnaire items. And the MBTI -- the Myers-Briggs that is -- is flawed because it overestimates the number of introverts and the number of intuitive types within our culture. Jung estimated the number of introverts within this country at 5 percent, and yet the questionnaire seems to have been designed so that 50 percent of the respondents are categorized as introverted simply because introversion is 50 percent of the types. As an introvert -- as a Jungian who understands his theory of introversion -- I can tell you that some of the people who have been categorized as introverts based on this questionnaire are by no means introverts. And yet this questionnaire has all the validity and reliability coefficients necessary to be psychometrically sound. That tells you something. It says that Science has its limits. There are things Science just cannot do. Although I have learned that one thing it is quite adept at is the distortion of Jungian theory for commercial purposes."