Hermeneutics of personality description.

Abstract

Recent decades have been marked by a steadily increasing emphasis on neural determinants of behavior. Concerns with socio-cultural processes have simultaneously been diminished. Given the significance of this shift toward a cortical explanation of human behavior-in terms of both the direction of research in psychology and the implications of this research for social practices and policy-critical reflection is essential. In particular, when significant conceptual flaws are brought into focus, we find good reason to reconsider the significance of sociocultural process. And, when we take into account major vistas of neuropsychological research, the conclusion becomes evident that not only is human action unintelligible in terms of neural activity, but the brain primarily functions in the service of cultural process. To be sure, cortical functioning may both enable and limit human activity. However, given the enormous variation in human conduct, and the dependency of such conduct on the generation of cultural meaning, the most promising conclusion, both for research and for societal practice, is to view the brain chiefly as an instrument for achieving socially originated ends. This is not to argue against inquiry into brain functioning, but to be more judicious about the domains of its utility, and critical in terms of what it offers for understanding human action.

Hidden dimensions of power and resistance in the translation process: A South African study

“…Answers may be designed to placate or to sabotage, or to achieve a range of other unknown goals. It has been shown that even in the use of English-language personality inventories with English-speaking subjects issues of contextual reflexivity arise (Gergen et al 1986;Semin 1987).…”

The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships.

“…The meaning of attributes and specific behaviors themselves also may be open to the whims of construal (e.g., Gergen et al, 1986;Griffin & Ross, 1991). Satisfied intimates, for example, typically explain away their partners' faults by attributing negative behaviors to specific, unstable features of the situation (Bradbury &Fincham, 1990;Hall & Taylor, 1976;HoltzworthMunroe & Jacobson, 1985).…”

“…Instead, behavior must be interpreted and given meaning, motives for that behavior must be inferred, and, most indirectly of all, impressions of a partner's personal characteristics must be constructed (e.g., Gergen, Hepburn, & Fisher, 1986;Griffin & Ross, 1991). As a result, intimates need not be bound by only one possible interpretation of one another's virtues and faults as dictated by some stern objective reality.…”

Towards an understanding of human-computer interaction aspects of geographic information systems

“…A hermeneutic explanation of human behavior regards it as actions resulting from intentions and desires, Hence an appropriate methodology of investigation should provide for interpretation of these motivations. To interpret the actions in terms of a meaningful sequence of activity the analysis must involve context as weil as content information, (Gergen et al, 1986), Critical psychology has adapted the method of discourse analysis, originating in the field of Iiterary criticism, to provide a method of investigation appropriate to complex human behavior. It provides more reliable results than introspection (Greenway, 1982), while avoiding the fragmentation of controlled psychological experimentation.…”