Scientists have studied human personality from a psychological and social point of view for decades. During this time, many theories have been developed about what types humanity can be divided into and how to classify them. The most popular is the theory of Sigmund Freud, according to which a person is driven by instincts and basic needs that expand with age. The second theory is the opinion of Eysenck, which was established experimentally. It suggests a division of people into different types, referring to crucial ability pairs, such as extroversion and introversion, as well as neuroticism and stability. The third most popular type of personality classification is scientist Cattell’s theory. It also can be considered the most extensive because, in the opinion of the author, people can be divided into 16 different types, which is much more than the previous scientists. Each of these theories has its characteristics and assumptions, but in this paper, the hypothesis put forward by Eysenck will be discussed.
As has already been mentioned, the theory is based on the division of people into categories that are opposed to each other. However, the combination of each of these principles results in a complete description of a person based on his position in society and other smaller factors. The categorization itself is based on a test invented by the scholar himself. It is based on questions that require a correct and precise answer according to type. They all have one kind of response: an assessment of similarity to the theoretical image provided through the question. If the person was sincere and answered honestly, the result will be a complete description of their type, depending on the category (Mebarki Meriama, 2018). Equally important is the fact that this system is easily interpolated on the already familiar division by type of temperament. Eysenck provided an infographic that describes how each of the types of character fits the theory he developed.
Just this theory can be called one of the best in the sense that it takes into account the personal qualities of the person and their interaction with the world. Thus, it is possible to create and extrapolate the type of person, which will be based not only on personal traits but also the interaction with society and its perception. This is very important as it is a more convenient analogy for compiling a complete psychological portrait of a person.
The theory had its origins in the 1940s when a scientist working in a psychiatric hospital did not discover that many patients had common traits. Since Freud’s theory was the mainstream at the time, Eysenck decided to question its relevance. By interviewing more than 700 soldiers undergoing treatment, he established a social connection between the participants in the experiment (Revelle, 2014). He proved that despite a person’s character and personal details, the influence of society is just as significant.
Many scholars argue about the relevance of this theory, as they do not consider it perfect compared to the one already mentioned above, which belongs to Catell. It is more extensive and, in many respects, repeats the study conducted by Eysenck, supplementing it with its features. However, it is worth noting that despite the more advanced metric, the 16 personality types theory is much more challenging to master and requires the presence of an expert who can confirm how reliable the survey was, unlike Eysenck’s theory (Mebarki Meriama, 2018). It is much easier to learn, and the questions present in establishing the personality type are simple and do not require further consultation. This makes Eysenck’s theory more concise and applicable even in schools.
Speaking of how much it is influenced by external factors, it is essential to consider that it is constructed on their basis. As mentioned earlier, this study focuses not only on one’s personality but also on his position in society. Thus, it can be argued that this feature makes this theory unique. It is also worth mentioning that Eysenck was not pressured by society or had problems with ethnic minorities in developing his concept, which also makes it more relevant.
Another problem could be the ethnicity not only of the author but also of the interviewees. Since they were all of the same nationality and had a common occupation, it is impossible to call the data obtained objective. Therefore, it is vital to understand that, despite the fact that this theory is still widely applicable, its objectivity has not been proven at the initial stage of its conception. Despite the fact that it has passed the test of time, it is still possible to doubt the validity of the applicable method because the author himself drew conclusions based on the data obtained not from various groups and types of the population but from the representatives of a typical kind of activity and sex (Saklofske et al., 2016). All of this together, although it gives rise to doubts about the results obtained in the survey, in most cases, they agree with the expected ones.
References
Mebarki Meriama, H. (2018). Psychological Space-Time Reinforcement Sensitivity : A Possibly Missing Link in Eysenck’s And Gray’s Personality Theories. NeuroQuantology, 16(12).
Revelle, W. (2014). Expanding Eysenck’s toolbox: Beyond correlational and experimental research.Personality and Individual Differences, 60, S80–S81.
Saklofske, D. H., Bowden, S. C., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Pena, E. (2016). Eysenck’s Four Factor Personality Model Is Invariant across Countries and Gender. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 512.