Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
---|---|---|---|
Personality | Social Sciences | Corr I 265 Personality/Social sciences/ToobyVsSocial sciences/CosmidesVsSocial sciences: The standard social science model (SSSM) offers no explicit meta-theory to direct the investigation of personality. This leaves personality researchers to follow intuition or trial and error to direct their discovery of new psychological phenomena (Tooby and Cosmides 1992)(1). This may impede significant progress in understanding the mechanisms underlying personality differences and the development of those characteristics. >Personality/Evolutionary psychology. 1.Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L. 1992. The psychological foundations of culture, in J. Barkow, L. Cosmides and J. Tooby (eds.), The adapted mind: evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, pp. 19–136. New York: Oxford University Press Aurelio José Figueredo, Paul Gladden, Geneva Vásquez, Pedro Sofio, Abril Wolf and Daniel Nelson Jones, “Evolutionary theories of personality”, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
Theories | Waltz | Brocker I 625 Theory/Politics/Waltz: A theory should explain the emergence of regularities (1). For Waltz, a theory is not a "series of laws concerning a certain behavior or phenomena". Nor do theories have the function of explaining laws. (2) Laws/Waltz: are obtained by observation. Theories: are obtained through speculative processes designed to explain laws. Theories are speculations. Therefore, they are only loosely connected to the real world. N.B.: from this definitional separation of laws and theories it follows that theories cannot be judged by whether they are true. Solution/Waltz: a good theory is characterized by the fact that it is coherent in its structure and other scientists take it seriously. (3) Laws/Waltz: Laws, on the other hand, can be judged according to the criteria "true" and "false". WaltzVsEmpirism: Waltz propagates a sharp separation between theory and reality. But it also applies: WaltzVsRationalism. Brocker I 626 Pragmatism/Waltz/Masala: Waltz has a pragmatic position close to Sellars and Quine. Reality/Waltz: For Waltz, theories construct a reality without anyone ever being able to say that this is reality (4). ((s) However, this position cannot be easily attributed to Quine). See Theories/Quine, Reality/Quine, Laws/Quine, Empiricism/Quine. Criteria/Waltz: for the formation of theories: 1. Criterion: Theories must discriminate. Reality/Realism/Waltz: Thesis: there is a reality independent of language and theories. ((s) contradiction to the thesis above, according to which there should be several "realities"). ((s) This is a position of extreme realism). The proximity to Quine and Sellars mentioned by Masala cannot be fully understood: See Realism/Quine, Reality/Sellars, Theory/Sellars. Method/WaltzVsPopper: Waltz advocates a pluralistic process of falsification and verification. (5) 2. Criterion for theory building: (WaltzVsBehavioralism): WaltzVsInduction: the inductive method of political theories of the 1960s and 1970s is wrong, since it wants to formulate laws from existing correlations. With the method of correlation, each variable can be related to another one in a statistically significant way. Complexity/WaltzVsInduction: the complexity of the real world cannot be explained by theories. For these theories are not descriptions, but instruments to explain parts of the real world. Brocker I 627 Theories/Waltz: should be simpler than reality; they should be "elegant". (6) To achieve this, a theory must ignore certain factors. Terms/Meaning/WaltzVsSocial Sciences: Problem: not only do meanings vary with viewers, this makes every social science theory inherently black. But even the attempt to specify the meaning of a term by operationalizing definitions is no way out, because any term can be operationalized in any discourse context. (7) See also Concepts/Quine. Solution/Waltz: we have to specify causalities. Brocker I 628 Social Sciences/Waltz: if causal connections and the interaction of variables can be explained, hard social science theories are possible. Theories/Waltz: cannot be tested - only the hypotheses derived from them. Therefore, a theory should not be rejected if one of its hypotheses is not confirmed. (8) 1. Kenneth N. Waltz, „Theory of International Relations“, in: Fred Greenstein/Nelson W. Polsby (Hg.) International Politics: Handbook of Political Science, Reading, Mas. 1975, p. 4 2. Ibid. p. 3. 3. Kenneth N. Waltz, “Assaying Theories: Reflections on Imre Lakatos”, in: Colin Elman/Miriam Fendius Elman (Ed.) Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, Cambridge, Mass.2003, S. xii. 4. Kenneth N. Waltz Theory of International Politics, Reading, Mas. 1979, p. 9. 5. Kernneth N. Waltz “Response to my Critics” in: Robert O. Keohane (Ed.) Neorealism and its Critics, New York 1986, p. 336. 6. Waltz 1975, p. 9. 7. Ibid. p. 11 8. Ibid. p. 13. Carlo Masala, „Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics” in: Manfred Brocker (Hg.) Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/M. 2018 |
PolWaltz I Kenneth N. Waltz Man,the State and War New York 1959 Brocker I Manfred Brocker Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert Frankfurt/M. 2018 |