Sense and Nonsense in Psychology

by Hans Jürgen Eysenck

Sense and Nonsense in Psychology (Pelican)

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction

352 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1956

About the author

= Hans J. Eysenck = H.J. Eysenck
Hans Jürgen Eysenck (/ˈaɪzɛŋk/; 4 March 1916 – 4 September 1997) was a psychologist born in Germany, who spent his professional career in Great Britain. He is best remembered for his work on intelligence and personality, though he worked in a wide range of areas. At the time of his death, Eysenck was the living psychologist most frequently cited in science journals

Reviews

[JCJBergman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Because this was first published in 1958 I enjoyed going through this book and being reminded of how far we've come away from giving any real merit to clairvoyance, lie detector tests, truth pills, Freud's psychosexual theories, etc.

Obviously, this book didn't necessarily tell me anything I didn't know in the profound sense because of how dated it is, but as mentioned, it's an interesting read if you want to revisit the methods of early 19th century psychological theories in personality and psychotherapy.

[J.D. Steens · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was my first exposure to Eysenck (a British psychologist) who, in part one of this book, discusses the pros and cons (actually, "sense and nonsense") of long-standing topics of psychological interest - hypnosis, lie detectors and truth drugs, telepathy and clairvoyance, and the interpretation of dreams.

Generally, he treated these topics fairly, though I thought he was overly harsh about Jungian archetypes. He put these into the category of “figments of the imagination,” that “are supposed to haunt our modern minds with mystical reminders of the inherited wisdom, or otherwise, of our race.” If animals have innate signaling and receiving capacities, why might we not have something similar - survival energies that manifest themselves in the form of agency? If not correct in particulars, Jung may have been on to something. It’s the same with Freud and dreams, which could be festering-desiring energies that reveal themselves in dreams that go way beyond Freud’s focus on sexual energy. (1) Yes, there’s a problem with interpretation and such is not even close to the standards of science, but this doesn’t mean that there’s nothing worthwhile to pursue.

Overall, Eysenck makes a pitch for psychology as a science, with emphasis on controlled experiment and verification as opposed to what he calls faddism, and cult-like devotion to school of thought founders, and the sloppy thinking of the non-professional psychologists (2) or, otherwise, the wishful thinking of good-hearted people. (3)

Part two of the book discusses personality issues. Here too, he argues that psychology as a science (controlled experiment and verification) can play an important role. (4) In this part, Eysenck moves into some new territory for me in his discussion of Pavlov (of dog and conditioning fame). Apparently Pavlov had divided personality along a hysteric-dysthymic (“persistent, mild depression”) continuum, that he thought had implications for inborn extrovert-introvert typologies common to modern psychology. Hysterics are characterized by the lack of inhibition; they are moved by momentary passions and are harder to socialize (condition) and control. Extend these tendencies to the extrovert realm and you get what Eysenck suggests of Pavlov -- the free personalities and those with the lack of moral scruples and, in extreme form, the psychopathic personalities that are void of any sort of “social responsibility.” At the “dysthymic” pole, individuals are anxious, obsessive and compulsive, and are more easily inhibited and conditioned. Extended into the realm of the introvert, Eysenck argues, again following Pavlov, that there are basic personality types who conform to social norms, fear violating them, and who generally are more conservative and subject to socialization and therefore conditioning. Eysenck then cites some preliminary studies that lend scientific support for such innate components to these personality types. (5)

Eysenck also applies a similar approach to innate studies of aesthetic judgment - a looking for an objective formula for the “scientific criteria of ‘beauty” and the “measurement of beauty.” (6) Here he distinguishes underlying form from style differences, with the former having a biological basis in such a way that “good taste” reflects what most humans, falling along a Bell curve, would see as beauty. Of course, this notion of common taste offends the art aficionados but Eysenck’s counter is that most common people are indifferent to art, but if they were focused on it (I am presuming this is Eysenck’s point), they would tap into these objective standards of beauty.

Eysenck acknowledges differences among individuals which counters the common assumption that humans are all the same, which accords with Darwinian theory that is based on variation around the mean. So, Eysenck writes, "we must take into account...considerable individual differences," adding that “good taste” and style preferences for aesthetic judgments “are often determined by highly individualistic and idiosyncratic factors.”

Eysenck moves beyond the “visual arts” and looks at poetry in the same light. While here as well he allows for “considerable individual differences,” he can also put poetry classification into his extrovert-introvert typology that, he says, are due to “temperamental factors. Extroverts tend to prefer the simple type of poem with a regular rhyming scheme, and the heavily accentuated rhythm; introverts prefer the more complex type of poem with the irregular rhyming scheme and the less obvious rhythm.”

Reading Eysenck was not easy. He is somewhat academic, with a penchant for details. But I was impressed with his acknowledgement of the scientific limitations of psychology, his attempt to be more rigorous in this regard, which includes putting some features of well-known human behaviors on a biological foundation. From his description I wonder whether his extrovert-introvert typology might be really a basic division - again, acknowledging human variability - between those who are excessively needy and those who are excessively fearful. And also reflecting Darwinian variability, might the basic division in political attitudes reflect some of the same dynamics but this time, the “conservative” temperament reflects both excessive need and fear, which are in some fundamental sense flip sides of each other, and contrasted with those on the opposite pole who are able to transcend their own neediness-fears to either feel the pain of others or otherwise to accommodate interests other than their own. From his discussion, this in a way seems to be what Eysenck seemed to be getting at.


(1) Interestingly, Eysenck states that Freud’s three part personality division (id, ego, superego) was anticipated (taken from?) by Plato's three-part division of soul - animal impulses, the conscious self and mind-reason, adding that Freud’s theory was “by no man's novel and original but has been part of educated thought for over 2,000 years.”

(2) “Psychological topics of which there is some factual knowledge in existence are often dealt with by the BBC, but they are nearly always dealt with by philosophers, zoologists, mathematicians, journalists, theologians, or unspecified dons of ancient vintage, who clearly do not know even that there is any factual knowledge available, and who speculate and pontificate to their hearts’ content in a manner they would never dare to assume in their own speciality.”

(3) Regarding intelligence tests that are said to be “either useless or actively malfeasant in their influence,” Eysenck writes that “Much of this argument arises from a very praiseworthy desire to give all children an equal chance, and to act on the principle that all men are created equal. Unfortunately, the facts make it quite certain that all men are not created equal, and that heredity clearly it discriminates between the bright and the dull.”

(4) “Psychology,” he writes, is intimately related “to the social studies, like sociology, economics, history, anthropology, social philosophy, psychiatry, and so on. These are sometimes called the social sciences, but it seems to me that at their present stage of development the term science is a little misleading as applied to fields characterized more by speculation and blind empiricism than by experimentally derived laws of general applicability.”

(5) Eysenck extends these personality types to political preferences - the extrovert becomes the hedonist who votes to satisfy self and class interest versus the “tender-minded” conservatives (introverts) with “a tender-minded regard for conventions and rules protecting society from the more biological drives of human nature.” While the topic of the personality types in politics makes sense, I found this part of Eysenck’s argument hard to understand.

(6) “On the whole, we may say that experimental work in aesthetics has unearthed a number of facts which cannot be disregarded by anyone interested in the problem of the formation of aesthetic judgements, and that these facts all point with remarkable unanimity to a theory of aesthetics which is firmly anchored in biology and derives judgements of ‘beauty’ from inherited properties of the central nervous system.”

[Dark-Draco · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sometimes books comes to us by accident and, having not been chosen, tend to leave us again unread. For a long time I toyed with sending this on its way, but something made me start reading one evening...and I'm glad I did.

The author sets about discussing areas of psychology that have become confused with popular myths and urban tales. He doesn't dismiss these out of hand, but explains how they have come about and what the science behind them actually tell us. The first half of the book deals with more concrete issues - hypnosis, the use of lie detectors, telepathy and interpreting dreams - while the second half covers more esoteric themes - measuring personality, conditioning, personality and politics and the psychology of aesthetics.

I enjoyed reading this immensely. It is clearly written and a has a great sense of humour, easily explaining quite complicated issues. I have a background in animal behaviour, so granted I had a bit of a head-start, but in all honesty, I think anyone would grasp the ideas he puts forward. The only downside is that this was written in 1957, so some of the concepts are set out using outmoded, very non-politically correct (by today's standards) phrases and analogies. Still, I can't take offence and for me it added a bit of unlooked for humour.

Well worth the read to stretch the little grey cells and proof that you should always attempt to read something before deciding it's not your thing.

[Erdal Domi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very objective and almost tiring if it weren't for wonderful pieces of interesting information riddled through the pages of this book. Sets some things straight when it comes to psychology and misconceptions around it.

[Shahad Al-Bayati · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتاب «المعقول واللامعقول في علم النفس» هو طرح نقدي يهدف إلى التمييز بين ما هو علمي فعلاً في علم النفس وما هو مبالغ فيه أو غير قائم على أدلة. يناقش إيزنك أفكاراً شائعة مثل التنويم المغناطيسي، الأحلام، اختبارات الشخصية، وبعض المعتقدات الخارقة، محاولاً تقييمها بناءً على البحث العلمي لا على الشهرة أو القبول الاجتماعي. لا يرفض الأفكار لمجرد غرابتها، ولا يقبلها دون فحص، بل يؤكد على أهمية الدليل والتجربة. ورغم أن أسلوب الكتاب وأمثلته تعود إلى زمنه (الستينات والسبعينات)، إلا أن فكرته الأساسية ما تزال مهمة برأيي، وهي التذكير بضرورة التفكير النقدي في علم النفس، و أن ليس كل ما يُتداول فيه
هذا المجال يُعد علماً حقيقياً.

وأود لو أرى كتاباً في نفس الموضوع لزمننا المعاصر، فبعد اجتياح السوشيال ميديا للعالم، انتشرت طاهرة "pop psychology" التي مسحت الخط بين التعاليم العلمية والمدلولات الثقافية والأجتماعية المتوارثة في علم التفس

[Emanuel Manston · Rating 4 out of 5]

I digested this piece of literature as more of a historical source. It was intriguing to see where psychology was at during this time and still wrestling with asserting the study as a science. Following the contest of getting psychology understood as a science through time has always been an interest to me and this book provided useful in building this history up. If you want to read some interesting dialogue on psychological practices during mid 19th-early 20th Century then this is definitely a book worth reading.

[Paul Magnussen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hans Eysenck was one of the most important and influential psychologists of the 20th century, being at the time of his retirement the most-cited social scientist in the World. He was especially known for advocating “the highest degree of scientific rigour in the design of psychological experiments and [being] very critical of much loose thinking current at present under the guise of ‘psychology’” (from the cover).

In the course of his career he produced several pioneering books demystifying psychology for the general public: in particular a seminal trilogy (later expanded to a quartet) for Penguin, He was an exceptionally lucid and entertaining writer, and the books sold millions of copies and were translated into several other languages. The quartet comprises:

Uses and Abuses of Psychology
Sense and Nonsense in Psychology
Fact and Fiction in Psychology
Psychology Is about People

In the first part of Sense and Nonsense the author takes the discussion further afield than Uses and Abuses, dealing with matters such as hypnosis, lie detectors and truth drugs, the interpretation of dreams, and even telepathy and clairvoyance. As always, his purpose is to sort out the wheat from the chaff; there is considerable discussion of the reliability of human testimony. Eysenck himself has experience in some of these areas. However, his conclusions have surprised and even annoyed some people, especially the following much-quoted passage:

“Unless there is a gigantic conspiracy involving some thirty university departments all over the world, and several hundred highly respected scientists in various fields, many of them originally hostile to the claims of the psychical researchers, the only conclusion the unbiased observer can come to must be that there is a small number of people who obtain knowledge existing either in other people’s minds, or in the outer world, by means as yet unknown to science.”

The second half of the book is concerned with personality and social life. After dealing with the question of whether personality can be measured (yes), the author considers its relation to conditioning, politics and æsthetics. Particular interesting is the Politics section, where Dr Eysenck demonstrates that attitudes logically unrelated often cluster together, and shows similarities between two groups commonly regarded as opposites — Communists and Fascists. He proposes a two-dimensional system (radical/conservative and tough-minded/tender-minded) and shows where various contemporary attitudes lie on it.

A thought-provoking book, and still well worth reading.

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Before deciding to write a thesis on Kant's influence on Jung, I toyed with the notion of doing one on the philosophical and conceptual problems obtaining with the distinction between extra- and introversion. This got serious enough that I purchased Eysenck's three volumes of studies on the matter and started reading it.

After turning in the Kant/Jung bit and graduating, I moved back to Chicago and found Sense and Nonsense in Psychology at a bookstore. Since Eysenck was mainstream, and anti-psychoanalytic, and since his work in personality theory had impressed me, and, finally, since the book promised a serious discussion of the kinds of phenomena parapsychologists (and Jung) study, I picked it up and read it over the course of several evenings at The No Exit Cafe, then on Lunt Ave. east of the Red Line.

Interestingly, Eysenck buys some of the evidence for ESP, albeit in his characteristically dry manner.

[Emil O. W. Kirkegaard · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting stuff but no specific sources given...