XIX.
Dictation for Conceptualization as Systems:
The decision to conceptualize the systems as derived from these
two components was
not made capriciously. It was made because my data required that the
systems be so represented.
a.
Conceptualize
adult behavior so as to allow for no variation in certain psychological
dimensions, such as intelligence and temperament. So personality must be
represented in such a way that certain dimensions do not change over
systems of behavior.
b.
Conceptualize
adult behavior so as to allow for quantitative variation in some
dimensions. Authoritarianism and dogmatism are dimensions that vary
in a quantitative fashion – both in a decreasing quantitative fashion
. . . more authoritarianism
down below and decreasing up above.
c.
Conceptualize
adult behavior in an alternating wave like fashion, allowing for
a repetition of theme as seen in the change and organizational data . .
. the different ways that people in different systems organized to do
work.
d.
Conceptualize
adult behavior so that every other system is similar to but at the
same time different from its alternative; the change data.
e.
Conceptualize
adult behavior so that each system has its system specificness, so
that each system has a quality all its own; the interaction data.
f.
Conceptualize
adult behavior so that certain systems are more externally oriented
and so that other systems are more internally oriented; the
deny/sacrifice self, and the express self data.
g.
Conceptualize
adult behavior so as to show increased degrees of behavioral freedom
in each successive system, particularly in the express self not at
the expense
of others
system; the freedom to behave and problem solving data.
Are you wondering where this last conceptualization about the
express self but not
at the expense of others
came from? I haven’t talked about it yet. I conducted a series of
studies for about three to four years in which I took a close look at
the deny self and the express self systems in terms of their problem
solving behavior. The students were presented with some open-ended
problems. I observed how they organized to solve these open-ended
problems. There were many possible answers to these problems and every
answer is not the same.
I had the opportunity to count how many solutions each system
arrived at; what was the average time it took the group to arrive at an
answer/solution; what was the quality of the solution;
how did they organize . . . in order to come by the solutions? The thing
that hit me, that stopped me cold for awhile because I just didn’t
know what to do with it . . . was this:
The express self but not at the expense of others found
more solutions than all the others
put together. The average period of time required to arrive at a
solution was much shorter than the other groups. The quality of the
solutions arrived at was better than the other groups. This system was very, very different . . . . .
incredibly different.
Obviously, I jumped to the wrong conclusion as was later proven
by the psychometric tests.
I just thought, well, all this is just a hierarchy of who is brighter
and who is dumber. That is the obvious conclusion that I jumped to.