This website is brought to you courtesy of the above commercial advertising
Note: This paper was published in 1994 in New Ideas In Psychology Vol. 12(2), pp. 153-167, Pergamon Press THE CARTESIAN THEORY: Unification of Eysenck and Gray GEORGE HAMMOND Abstract- This paper advances a new and comprehensive theory of the biological basis of the Structural Model of Personality. The Cartesian geometry of the brain is proposed as the origin of the Structural Model. Eysenck's personality model is identified with the Cartesian structure of the brain. A decussation in the Papez loop serves to unite Gray's personality model with Eysenck's model providing strong experimental support. The theory explains the Big-5 model in psychometry which is cited as a direct empirical confirmation. The Cartesian Theory advances that the Structural Model of Personality, contrary to prevailing opinion, is an axiomatic "hard science" structure. I. INTRODUCTION: A PRIMER IN THEORETICAl PHYSICS FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS The author is a theoretical physicist although he has spent a decade working in psychology. For this reason it is necessary to bridge the interdisciplinary gap between physics and psychology by explaining what is meant by "Cartesian Theory", why it is "axiomatic", and to explain the novel idea that psychometric structure should be identical to brain structure as this theory proposes. In physics the word "Cartesian" means, and only means, an "orthogonal three-axis structure". The name derives from DesCartes' mathematical studies. DesCartes is also the author of numerous philosophical tracts, but those works do not relate to this discussion. Cartesian structure is unique in that it is found that real space is Cartesian, the first axiom of classical physics. The Cartesian structure of space causes the common rectangular shape of objects to be the most prevalent structure in science. The bonding orbitals of the atoms themselves are Cartesian which imparts a Cartesian structural influence on all material substance. The Cartesian structure of space imposes a physical law that all mechanical systems have three degrees of freedom, which explains the shape of a house, a car, an airplane; it is the first principle of all zoological formation and axiomatically predetermines the anatomy of man. The human body is a three-axis Cartesian structure (Fig. 1a). In the CNS
Figure 1,a,b,c,d,e,f,g
the spinal cord is the first axis (neuraxis), and the Medial and Central fissures the second and third axes; the latter two yielding a primary four- lobed brain geometry. This basic Cartesian geometry is derived from the first three (Cartesian) cleavages of the egg in embryology (Fig. 1b). Of interest here is that each of these Cartesian axes exhibits a major functional neurological differentiation, one on each axis; namely, the Triune neuraxial formation (stem-limbic-cortex), the Bell-Magendie, and the Sperrian. This three-axis differentiation could produce three independent psychometric factors. thus we have at the outset, an axiomatic Cartesian neurological structure associated with possibly three independent psychometric factors. It happens that the reverse situation already exists in personality theory. Eysenck's three uncorrelated psychometric factors may be visually represented by a Cartesian geometric structure (Cartesian coordinates). This simply because the location of a point in space is taken to be the standard example of three independent variables thus it is that we have psychometric geometry linked to brain geometry. Now, we may also derive a further structural result from this. If the four main lobes of the brain (L-R motor and sensory) are the seat of four contrasting personalities, we see that the contrast between the diagonally situated lobes represents an extremum. We therefore predict personality conflict to be a diagonally organized neurological process. This indeed turns out to be the origin of Gray's neurologically based personality theory. Gray's theory is a neurological connecting structure that links directly the diagonally situated lobes of the brain, and causes, in addition to Eysenck's three "normal" psychometric axes, a set of "diagonal" psychometric axes of personality conflict (personality syndromes), once again geometrically identical with their causal brain structure (Fig. 4). This constitutes of
Figure 4 course, a powerful experimental confirmation of the Cartesian theory of the brain. Finally, it turns out that Eysenck's three dimensions of P,E,N, and Gray's two dimensions of AnxD and ImpD, are none other than the five factors of the celebrated Big-5 Model in personality psychometry, yielding a unitary psychometric confirmation of the theory. While the established facts are clearly sufficient to advance that the Cartesian Theory is "axiomatic", there are some who will wonder about the ultimate biological chain of causality. In this regard I will here present an illuminating heuristic argument. We may presume that in the primitive brain one of the first logical operations was coordination of the machine in space. This is a Cartesian operation (cf., pitch, roll, and yaw) and we might assume that the organism simply utilized the isomorphic structural relation of its brain to the surrounding Cartesian space to effect this. The R-brain controlled R-turns, the L-brain L-turns, the front brain down turns, etc. Data relating head and eye steering movements (LEMS) with Sperrian lateralization are likely evidence of this. As the primitive brain evolved into the complex that it is today, mechanical navigation became logical navigation and finally psychological navigation so that today the four lobes of the brain are the location of four "personalities" of man. Personality structure and indeed personality conflict, has simply evolved from man's primitive mechanical steering system. Now, a speculation such as this is, of course, absolutely unessential for the present theory and I include it only as an interesting heuristic argument which is more or less representative of a large class of circumstantial data of this kind. Having now established a bridge between the fundamental structural principles of classical physics and those of personality structure, we turn to a necessarily faster paced and more formal exposition of the Cartesian Theory. it is to be remarked here that what follows is an extremely summary treatment of the theory; little more than a theoretical note announcing its discovery. Hopefully a detailed exposition will be possible later on. I am indebted to New Ideas in Psychology for undertaking the publication of an unusual scientific work and particularly to two of their reviewers who first raised the issue of the 5-Factor theory. Had they not done so that significant development might still lay uncovered. II. The Cartesian Theory of Anatomy This theory is based on the authors observation that all vertebrate animals possess Cartesian symmetry. In the embryo this is marked by the neuraxis, the bilateral symmetry, and the sulcus limitans (dorso-ventral symmetry line, D-V), the latter separating the motor and sensory plates in the embryo. The work of Roux (1888), Driesch, Spemann, Schmidt, and others early in this century established that macroscopic anatomical geometry is derived from the simple Cartesian cleavage of the egg (Fig. 1b). This Cartesian geometry of mitosis and embryology then is the origin of the Cartesian symmetry of the brain, evidenced in the intersection of the neuraxis, the Medial fissure, and the Central (Rolandic) fissures of the brain- the three Cartesian axes of the brain. The entire body is a Cartesian construct. The core of this structure is the spine which is three-axis symmetric. The skeleton is a Cartesian structure, including the quadrupedal locomotion system of all higher animals. All of the fundamental systems of the body are Cartesian: The vestibular system, the oculomotor system, the visual cortex as evidenced by quadrantanopia, the quadrature of the circulatory system, the cerebellum, the primary musculature, the Cartesian symmetry of the teeth, the sutures of the skull (bregmatic fontanel), etc. (Fig. 1).
Figure 1a,b,c,d,e,f,g
Historically, the first of the three Cartesian divisions of the brain to be identified by neurophysiologists was the Bell-Magendie dichotomy situated astride the Central fissure. Over 100 years later it fell to Roger Sperry to identify the neuropsychological function of the second axis, the celebrated L-R axis. Despite the fact that it is the oldest known structure in the brain, the attachment of a neuropsychological label to the neuraxis itself has been slow in developing and perhaps the best-known terminology and most comprehensive theory of this structure is Paul MacLean's Triune Brain (MacLean, 1973) (Fig. 2). Figure 2 Armed with these well-documented theses we turn now to the field of psychology to search for the possible psychological correlates of this Cartesian neurophysiological structure. III. The Eysenckian Personality Model The oldest theory of personality is that of the Four Humors advanced by Hippocrates 25 centuries ago and Eysenck has stressed the relation of this historical model to his empirical result (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969, p. 13). A general convergence of current research trends towards this result has recently been advanced by Merenda (1987). Implicit in the Cartesian Theory of course, is that these four historical personalities now find a scientific basis in the four lobes of the brain. Moreover, Freud's celebrated Structural Model consisting of the Ego, SrEgo, Id, and Libido is identified by the present author with this result (Fig. 6). Figure 6 Eysenck's empirical personality model (Eysenck 1947, 1952, 1970, 1976, 1981, 1990, 1992b) is one of the most cited theories in contemporary personality literature and is, arguably, the leading theory in the field. The model consisting of three psychometric dimensions named Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism (E,N,P) is well known as a three-axis orthogonal theory. Eysenck (1967) has also advanced a biological model identifying the neurological basis of the psychometric result. Eysenck's theory is immediately reconciled with the Cartesian Theory by identifying E,N,P with the three Cartesian axes of the brain outlined in Section II (Fig. 2). Fig 2 A large literature on lateralization of emotion (Silberman & Weingartner, 1986) indicates that the +N, -N spectrum (positive vs. negative emotion) is identified with Sperrian lateralization. Extraversion is identified with the Bell-Magendie dichotomy, support for this coming from Brebner (1983), Brebner and Cooper (1974,1978), and Stelmack (Stelmack & Plouffe, 1983). Stelmack has indicated that "the case can be made" that E is associated with the Bell-Magendie dichotomy itself. Psychoticism is identified with the remaining Cartesian axis (the neuraxis). Both Claridge (1981a) and Gray (1981, p. 272) have suggested a vertical neurological integration as the basis of P and this fits with my own opinion that it represents a vertical pathology along the axis of MacLean's Triune Brain. Eysenck's neurological model is also reconciled with the Cartesian structure of the brain. His model identifies E with cortical arousal and N with Limbic activation (Eysenck, 1967). Eysenck recently states "the theory linking Arousal with the E dimension is relatively novel, whereas that linking N and the limbic system has a long history" (Eysenck, 1990, p. 249). While the Cartesian theory indicates simply lateralization of the limbic system for N, it now explains the "novel" identification of cortical arousal with E. the Bell-Magendie dichotomy is most visible in the cortex (the motor-sensory strip) which would lead to an identification of E with cortical function. It is also interesting to note that the neuraxial modulation via the ARAS, the third element of this model, might be related to P. Summing up then, Eysenck's well established E and N dimensions are clearly correlated neurophysiological, according to contemporary data, with the first two Cartesian axes of the brain. Of particular note is that the obvious criticism of Eysenck's theory for not including Sperrian lateralization (Powell, 1981, p. 69) has been handily solved in the process. The support for P is still largely a case of identification by default, but not entirely by any means, and this is attributed largely to the fact that it is a relatively recent development in Eysenckian theory and still undergoing development (Claridge, 1981b; Eysenck, 1990, 1992b). IV. Eysenck's Quadrature in Social Attitudes Historically, Hans Eysenck's personality model is derived from his research in social psychology, particularly his two-axis model of social attitudes (Eysenck, 1944). He proposed and has subsequently established (Eysenck, 1951, 1954, 1975; Eysenck & Wilson, 1978) that there is a second axis (T), orthogonal to the well-known Left-Right political axis (R),in social attitudes. Despite Eysenck's insistence that the primary mooring in social attitudes must be the historical L-R axis, there is the undeniable appearance of a diagonal theory, rotated 45 degrees from his model. Adorno's theory is a famous example of this (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson & Sanford, 1950). This theory consists of a single diagonal dimension (Eysenck & Wilson, 1978, p. 4; Ray, 1986, p. 157) which I shall call the "left diagonal". Both diagonals make an appearance in Ferguson's (1939, 1973) well-known result; discussed at length by Eysenck (Eysenck, 1954, 1971; Eysenck & Wilson, 1978). A summary of this normal vs. diagonal controversy is given by Brand (1981, p. 22) who points out that this same peculiarity appears in personality psychometry as well as in social attitudes. As a matter that might shed some intuitive light on the relation of "normal" to "diagonal" structure, I will mention my belief that Eysenck's model is the origin of the Bicameral/Two-Party System (BI/2P), and that my analysis of the Roll Call voting record in the U.S. Congress has detected the existence of a diagonal "X" pattern in the voting statistics. This suggests that while social structure is normal, social conflict is diagonal, as it were. Now, an axiomatic Cartesian theory, if proven true, would manifestly indicate that Eysenck's social attitude model cannot be anything other than a direct social manifestation of his personality model. This indicates the existence of a third axis, likewise, in social attitudes. Eysenck has successively tried to show that the personality dimensions E, and then P, underlies the social dimension T (Ray, 1986, pp. 167-168). The existence of a third axis then, would indicate that they both probably do and that the P component of T is actually the third axis, while the E component is probably then, his time honored second axis. this would complete the suspected identity, indicated by the Cartesian theory, between the Structural Model of Personality and the structure of social attitudes. The established existence however, of a diagonal structure in both social attitudes and personality theory has been introduced here specifically for the purpose of providing a general backdrop for the introduction of Jeffrey A. Gray's diagonal personality model. In the next section it is then demonstrated how the Cartesian Theory of the brain unifies his diagonal model with Eysenck's model, thus yielding a powerful experimental confirmation of the correctness of the Cartesian Theory itself, which serves to unite them. V. The Unification of Eysenck and Gray Gray's personality model (Gray, 1970, 1972, 1981, 1982, 1987a, 1987b, 1987c, 1988, 1991a, 1991b, 1991c) is referred to as an alternative to Eysenck's theory, the difference being a 45 degree rotation from Eysenck's model. Gray's theory is based on two decades of experimental research on Anxiety with a recent, and by comparison, rather tentative proposal concerning the origin of Impulsivity (Gray, 1991a, 1991b, 1991c). The thrust of Gray's research however, is that his diagonal theory represents a structure that is closer to biological causation than Eysenck's theory. Gray states: "A number of arguments suggest that the axes labelled 'anxiety' and 'impulsivity'...have a better claim to...biologically real lines of causation than any other...including the original rotation used by Eysenck" (Gray, 1987a, p. 352). On the other hand we have Eysenck's opinion of Gray's theory: "Interesting and important as Gray's contributions have been on the physiological side...correlational studies suggest that the picture Gray gives is essentially wrong...on the whole it would seem more appropriate to relate (his biological theory) to (Introversion) rather in line with my own earlier theories" (Eysenck, 1990, p. 248). Judging from this, at both the biological and psychometric levels, a normal and diagonal model are well entrenched in the literature and in fundamental disagreement. As a further disturbing observation, it is noted that neither of these established theories deals with the now immense topic of Sperrian lateralization (Powell, 1981, p. 69). It is at this point that the Cartesian Theory happens on its first major success. Gray's theory is seen as the neurological structure that controls interaction and conflict, diagonally, between the four principle lobes (L-R motor and sensory) of the brain, which underlie Eysenck's model (Fig. 4).
Figure 4
Now, Eysenck has shown that the distribution of E and N is isotropic and
From the quadrupole distribution
of this figure, we see how a
diagonal conflict structure arises
from eysenck's normal dimensions of E and
N. Conflict is implicated,
both from the bipolar structure of the dimensions
and from the classic social Left-Right
conflict which exists on the
horizontal axis. Moreover,
at the biological level, we now have a four-lobed
brain structure which is suggestive
in itself of a diagonal
neuropsychological extremum.
All of this suggests that Gray's model must
consist of a diagonal neurological
link connecting the diagonally opposed
lobes, or personalities, of the
brain.
Gray's biological
model consists of the septohippocampal system (SHS)
controlling Anxiety, a behavioral
activation system (BAS) underlying
Impulsivity and a Fight/Flight
system yielding a new third dimension,
suggested by Gray as possibly
Eysenck's P (Gray, 1987a, 1991a, 1991b, 1991c).
Here I will simply state that
the Cartesian Theory indicates that any
dimensions normal to the E-N
plane has to correlate with Eysenck's P whether
controlled by a Fight/Flight
or some other neurological system. Regarding
the BAS, the Cartesian Theory
indicates that there is a far more fundamental
neurophysiological origin of
Impulsivity than "goal oriented motor
programming" (BAS) as recently
advanced by Gray (1991a, 1991b, 1991c). In
fact, it is a decussation in
the SHS that indicates that it is the SHS once
again, which Gray has spent 20
years developing, that not only controls
Anxiety, but in a diagonally
symmetric mode of operation, actually controls
both Anxiety and Impulsivity.
the SHS (Gray, 1991a,
p. 275) (Fig. 5) Fig
5 consists of a comparator located
in
the hippocampus. this compares
periodically the real world of sensory input
to a predicted or expected world
generated by sensory input traversing the
Papez circuit. If the comparator
detects a significant deviation from
expected events it activates
a neurophysiological state of Anxiety as a
reactive mechanism. the
theory is well established in the literature and has
a broad foundation in experimental
neurophysiology.
The SHS is centered
in the fornix which connects the dorsal sensory area
(hippocampus) to the ventral
motor region (hypothalamus). the SHS is also
bilaterally symmetric.
We immediately see heretofore a D-V and L-R geometry
in Gray's SHS. The four
endpoints of this "X" as it were, being the left and
right hippocampi and the left
and right mammillary bodies; the septal area
being the center of the "X".
In short, the four arms of the fornix appear as
the likely neuroanatomical candidate
for the diagonal connecting structure
which would underlie Gray's diagonal
personality model (Fig. 4).
A direct examination
of the neurocircuitry of this system confirms that
this is the case: The SHS contains
a significant decussation. this
decussation takes place in the
Papez loop, between the hippocampus and the
mammillary bodies, most of it
probably in the supramammillary decussation but
some of it probably in the body
of the fornix or even the septal area.
Swanson and Cowen state: "the
dorsal subiculum projects through the
descending column of the fornix
to the mammillary complex where its efferents
end bilaterally" and "The pre-
and/or parasubicular input to the mammillary
complex terminates bilaterally
in both the medial and lateral mammillary
nuclei," and finally "it is presumably
through these...mammillary projections
that the 'return loop, of the
so-called Papez circuit is completed" (Swanson
& Cowen, 1977, pp. 64, 71,
and 82). This is irrefutable evidence of a
decussation in the Papez loop.
Simply put, the right hippocampus projects
significantly to the left mammillary
body, and vice versa for the left
hippocampus. While this
is a decussation in the forward half of the Papez
loop, in order for the loop to
be diagonal, there must be a decussation in
the return half of the circuit.
Classically the return half of the Papez
loop is through the cingulate
cortex. the left and right cingulate cortex of
course is cross connected at
all points by the corpus callosum. a major
crossed return path is therefore
readily available.
Now how does this
decussation in the Papez loop diagonally connect the
four major lobes of the brain?
Gray tells us that the SHS needs sensory
input on the state of the environment
and motor input concerning the nature
of motor programs or plans (Gray,
1987a, pp. 298-299). the first is input
from the entorhinal area in the
dorsal sensory half of the brain, and the
second is input to the cingulate
cortex in the ventral motor half of the
brain. But the motor-sensory
(Bell-Magendie) division is one of the two
Cartesian axes. the other
axis is the bilateral (L-R) symmetry of the SHS.
A prediction then, made by traversing
the Papez loop diagonally is a
prediction based on the comparison
of multimodal input from the diagonally
situated lobes of the brain.
It is because of this that the generated
prediction is an expression of
diagonal personality interaction and as a
result, it is seen that the comparator
in the L-hippocampus controls Gray's
Anxiety dimension while the comparator
in the R-hippocampi controls
Impulsivity. the mystery
of Gray's long missing Impulsivity lies in the fact
that his SHS contains a decussation.
In several places
gray (1987a, pp. 333 and 335, 1988) mentions the
findings of Rieman, Raichle,
Robins, Butler, Herscovitch, Fox and Perlmutter
(1986), using PET scans of human
panic attack patients, as a strong piece of
evidence supporting his theory.
While rieman found higher activity in the
SHS, "unexpectedly" according
to Gray, this activity is found to be much
higher in the R-hippocampus.
Now, panic attack is a high E, high N syndrome,
as are the phobias, and therefore
lie on Gray's Impulsivity axis. Rieman's
finding is seen therefore not
only to confirm Gray's theory generally, as he
claims it does, it strongly confirms
this major prediction of the present
theory, in particular.
In summary then,
Gray tells us that there is a comparator which compares
reality with expectation, but
it turns out from the Cartesian Theory that
expectation depends upon four
opinions. The four personalities defined by
the intersection of Eysenck's
E and N axes are shown by the cartesian theory
to reside in the four primary
lobes defined by the intersection of the Medial
and Central fissures of the brain.
These four lobes input highly processed
multimodal information into the
four extremities of the Papez-Gray fornical
system and there is a strong
diagonal component of circulation in this
system. Thus it is that
the generation of expectations is composed of a
diagonal balance of opinion between
the diagonally opposed lobes, or
personalities, of the brain.
Gray's diagonal system is the mediator of
personality conflict and as such,
is a functional corollary to the underlying
Eysenckian structure of personality.
Finally, it is seen, that it is the
Cartesian principle of structure
which unifies these two heretofore
conflicting models and gives
the resulting unified model the status of an
axiomatic theory, the first such
theory in the history of psychology.
VI. THE 5-FACTOR THEORY
Recently, there has
been a surprising movement in personality psychometry
toward a 5-Factor model (Costa
& McCrae, 1992; Costa, McCrae, & dye, 1991;
Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Thronquist,
& Kiers, 1991). this movement has left
theorists, notably Eysenck, in
some consternation (Eysenck, 1992a). In a
urprising development then, it
appears that the Cartesian theory is to
provide the resolution to yet
another scientific conundrum.
The Cartesian Theory
in unifying Eysenck and Gray, says that there are
three neuropsychologically based
axes in the Structural Model proper
(Eysenck's P,E,N) and that there
are two allied neurologically based axes of
personality conflict, relating
the diagonally opposed lobes of the Structural
Model, in the E-N plane (Gray's
Anxiety- AnxD and Impulsivity- ImpD). By
simple addition then, we have
3+2=5 neurologically based dimensions
associated with the Structural
Model of Personality. Gray's neurological
discovery has taken us into the
realm of diagonal personality dimensions in
Eysenckian 3-space, according
to the Cartesian Theory.
The problem is that
Gray's dimensions are not exactly personality
dimensions like P, E and N.
They are personality conflict (or syndrome)
dimensions. Since personality
reactions depend not only on predisposition
(personality) but also on exposure
(see Eysenck, 1947, pp. 45-51 on multiple
causation), the correlation with
E and N is expected to be less than .707
(the cosine of 45 degrees), say
something around .5. It is probably this
reduced correlation that has
lead personality psychologists to presume that
these factors beyond E,N,P are
also orthogonal. In fact they are not, they
are symmetrically and moderately,
correlated with E,N,P.
As Eysenck points
out, Costa and McCrae (1992) show a correlation of c=-
.49 with N and o=+.43 with E,
and further that he thinks a is simply "the
obverse of P" (Eysenck, 1992a).
While the correlation of c/-N and o/E are
not symmetrical they are of the
right magnitude, for us to make the
identification between the 5-Factor
model and the Eysenck-Gray unification
listed in Table 1. This
identification is based not only on the correlations
reported but also on a comparison
of the description of these factors of o,
c, and AnxD, ImpD (see Costa
& McCrae, 1992; Gray, 1970).
Having found this
origin of the 5-Factor model we explore a bit further.
Eysenckian 3-space contains not
two but in fact four "diagonals" (Fig. 7).
This indicates immediately that
Eysenck's 3-Normals plus the 4-Diagonals,
represents the general solution
of the Structural Model, 3+4=7 general
factors. The 5-Factor model
is then the special case where the four
diagonals are collapsed into
two fictitious diagonals which lie in the E-N
plane (Fig. 8).
Fig
8 In this regard, it is of
considerable interest that
Zuckerman has found that the
7-,5- and 3-Factor models are the most
significant (Zuckerman, Kuhlman,
& Camac, 1988; Zuckerman et al., 1991).
Zuckerman then, has actually
identified the general solution, as well as
confirmed the existence of the
robust 5-Factor model. Finally, we note that
Gray has recently tilted his
two basic diagonals out of the E-N plane into
the third dimension (Fig. 9)
which argues very strongly for the 7-Factor
model as the general solution.
This development
ends the controversy of 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 or 16 dimensions in
the Structural Model. The
answer is "axiomatically" three. Three
personality dimensions plus four
diagonals of conflict (personality
syndromes) make up the Structural
Model (Fig. 7). All psychometric models
must be projections or redactions
of this General Solution and there are half
a dozen or more. In principle
the Cartesian Theory has explained, reconciled
and confirmed all of the existing
psychometric models of personality.
In conclusion, while
the 7-Factor model is indicated as the general
solution, we don't know how robust
it is, and it may be that the 5-Factor
theory is so much more robust
that it will turn out to be a more useful
clinical tool. However,
for the purposes of this paper, it is the resolution
of this multifactor problem and
the explanation of the Big-5 result, which
lends considerable support now,
to the empirical proof of the Cartesian
Theory advanced in this paper.
VII. Conclusion
In the opinion of
the author the first conclusion of this paper can only
be, that the long-awaited scientific
discovery of the Structural Model of
Perrsonality has finally occurred.
We finally have an answer to the simple
question "Where does the Structural
Model come from?". The answer to that
question is "The Cartesian structure
of the brain". The scientific model
turns out to be the three-axis
empirical result established by Hans Eysenck
and now brilliantly confirmed
by Gray's experimental research. Looking back
at a more urgent age of psychological
research moreover, this scientific
discovery is seen to confirm
the historical incidence of the Structural
Model. The equivalence
of the Freudian and Eysenckian models is thus
suggested in Fig. 6. Figure
6
One cannot leave
off, however, without mentioning the impact that the
discovery of the Cartesian basis
of the structural model is going to have on
other fields of research and
how other fields of research are in turn, going
to help confirm the Cartesian
Theory, The Cartesian basis of the BI/2P
system has already been mentioned
in section IV. In addition the author has
researched the notion that the
Four Gospel Canon of the Bible is in fact the
theological identification of
the Structural Model. Indeed, the Cross of
Christianity itself is quite
likely the symbolic representation of the
Cartesian structure of the mind
(Hammond, 1988, 1989). The effects of this
discovery on science, religion
and government can be expected to be far
reaching.
Note added in proof- As this paper
goes to press, the author has discovered
that Raymond b. Cattell's 7-second
order factors, as numerically reported by
Krug & Johns, mathematically
and rigorously confirm, the 7-Factor General
Solution advanced in Fig. 7.
this significant development is reported in an
upcoming paper by the author;
coauthored by Professor Peter F. Merenda (URI).
An interim report of this discovery
is available from the author upon
request.
Acknowledgements- The author wishes
to thank Professors Hans Eysenck, Michael
W. Eysenck, Paul D. MacLean,
Jeffrey A. Gray, Chris R. Brand, Marvin
Zuckerman, Robert M. Stelmack,
Raymond B. cattell, and Peter F. Merenda past
president of the New England
Psychological Association, for their helpful
comments, during the recent years
of a decade of research of this theory.
REFERENCES
ADORNO T.W., FRENKEL-BRUNSWICK E., LEVINSON D.J., & SANFORD R.N.,(1950), The Authoritarian Personality, Harper, New York
BRAND C.R.,(1981), Personality
and Political Attitudes. In: Dimensions of
Personality, Richard Lynn (ed.),
Pergamon Press
BREBNER J.,(1983), A Model of
Extraversion, Australian Journal of Psychology,
Vol. 35, No. 3, 349-359
BREBNER J. & COOPER C.,(1974),
The Effect of a Low Rate of Regular Signals
upon the Reaction Times of Introverts
and Extraverts, Journal of Research in
Personality, 8, 263-276
BREBNER J. & COOPER C.,(1978),
Stimulus or Response Induced Excitations. A
Comparison of Behavior of Introverts
and Extraverts. Journal of Research in
Personality, 12, 306-311
BURT C.,(1941), The Factors of the Mind, Macmillan, New York
CLARIDGE G.S.,(1981a), Arousal.
In: Underwood G, Stevens R.G. (eds.), Aspects
of Consciousness, Academic Press,
London
CLARIDGE G.S.,(1981b), Psychoticism.
In: Lynn R. (ed.), Dimensions of
Personality. Papers in Honor
of H.J. Eysenck, Oxford, Pergamon Press
COSTA, P.T., & McCRAE, R.R.
(1992). Four ways five factors are basic.
Personality and Individual Differences,
13, 653-665
COSTA, P.T., McCRAE, R.R., &
DYE, D.A. (1991). facet scales for agreeableness
and conscientiousness: A revision
of the NEO personality inventory.
Personality and Individual Differences,
12, 887-898
EYSENCK H.J.,(1944), General Social
Attitudes, J. Social Psychology, 19, 207-
227
EYSENCK, H.J. (1947). Dimensions
of personality. London, U.K.: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
EYSENCK H.J.,(1951), Primary Social
Attitudes as Related to Social Class and
Political Party, Brit. J. Sociology,
2, 198-209
EYSENK, H.J. (1952). The scientific
study of personality. London, U.K.:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
EYSENCK H.J.,(1954), The Psychology of Politics, Routlidge, London
EYSENCK H.J.,(1967), The Biological
Basis of Personality, Charles C. Thomas,
Springfield IL.
EYSENCK H.J.,(1970), The Structure
of Human Personality (3rd ed.), Methuen,
London
EYSENCK, H.J. (1971). Social attitudes
and social class. British Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology,
10, 201-212
EYSENCK H.J.,(1975), The Structure
of Social Attitudes, Brit. J. Soc. Clin.
Psychol., 14, 323-331
EYSENCK H.J.,(1976), Psychoticism
as a Dimension of Personality, Hodder &
Stroughton, London
EYSENCK H.J.(ed.),(1981), A Model for Personality, Springer, New York
EYSENCK H.J.,(1990), Biological
Dimensions of Personality., In:Handbook of
Personality: Theory and Research,
Lawrence A. Pervin (ed.), The Guilford
Press, New York
EYSENCK, H.J. (1992a). Four ways
five factors are not basic. Personality and
Individual Differences, 13, 667-673.
EYSENCK, H.J. (1992b). the definition
and measurement of psychoticism.
Personality and Individual Differences,
13, 757-785
EYSENCK, H.J. & EYSENCK, S.B.G.
(1969). Personality structure and
measurement. London, U.K.: routledge
& Kegan Paul.
EYSENCK H.J. & WILSON G.D.,(1978),
The Psychological Basis of Ideology,
Lancaster, MTP Press: University
Park Press, Baltimore MD
EYSENCK H.J.,(1986), In: Hans
Eysenck. Consensus and Controversy, Modgil &
Modgi (eds.), The Falmer Press
FERGUSON L.W.,(1939), Primary
Social Attitudes, The Journal of Psychology, 8,
217-223
FERGUSON L.W.,(1973), Primary
Social Attitudes of the 1960s and Those of the
1930s, Psychological Reports,
33, 655-664
GRAY J.A.,(1970), The Psychophysiological
Basis of Introversion-Extraversion,
Behav. Res. Ther., 8, 249-266
GRAY J.A.,(1972), The Psychophysiological
Basis of Introversion-Extraversion:
A Modification of Eysenck's Theory.,
In: Nebylitsyn V.D., Gray J.A. (eds.),
The Biological Basis of Individual
Behavior, Academic Press, New York, p 185-
205
GRAY J.A.,(1981), A Critique of
Eysenck's Theory of Personality. In: Eysenck
H.J. (ed.), A Model for Personality,
p 272-273
GRAY J.A.,(1982), The Neuropsychology
of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the
Functions of the Septo-Hippocampal
System, Oxford University Press, New York
GRAY J.A.,(1987a), The Psychology
of Fear and Stress, second edition,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
England
GRAY, J.A. (1987b). The neuropsychology
of emotion and personality. In S.M.
Stahl, S.D. Iverson & E.C.
Goodman (Eds.), Cognitive Neurochemistry. Oxford,
U.K.: Oxford University Press.
GRAY, J.A. (1987c). Perspectives
on anxiety and impulsivity: A commentary.
Journal of Research in Personality,
21, 493-509.
GRAY, J.A. (1988). Behavioral
and neural-system analyses of the actions of
anxiolytic drugs. Pharmacology
Biochemistry & Behavior, 29, 767-769.
GRAY, J.A. (1991a). Neural systems,
emotion and personality. In J. Madden, IV
(Ed.). Neurobiology of learning,
emotion and affect. New York: Raven Press.
GRAY, J.A. (1991b). the neuropsychology
of temperament. In J. Strelau & A.
Angleitner (Eds.), Exploration
in temperament. New York: Plenum Press.
GRAY, J.A., FELDON, J., RAWLINS.,
J.J.P., HEMSLEY, D.R., & SMITH, A.D.
(1991c). The neuropsychology
of schizophrenia. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
14, 1-84.
HAMMOND G.H.,(1988), The Origin
of the Cross, HPpub, ISBN 0-940915-02-2, LC
87-80586 (self published)
HAMMOND, G.E. (1989). Some indications
that Eysenck's two factor result
relates to the primary two-axis
structure of the brain. Unpublished
available upon request from the
author.
MACLEAN P.D., (1973), A Triune
Concept of the Brain & Behaviour. U of Toronto
Pr.
MERENDA P.F.,(1987), Toward a
Four-Factor Theory of Temperament and/or
Personality, Journal of Personality
Assessment, 51(3), 367-374
POWELL G.E.,(1981), A Survey of
the Effects of Brain Lesions upon
Personality. In: Eysenck H.J.
(ed.), A Model for Personality, Springer-
Verlag, p 69
RAY J.,(1986), Eysenck on Social
Attitudes: An Historical Critique., In: Hans
Eysenck. Consensus and Controversy,
Modgil & Modgil (eds.), The Falmer Press
RIEMAN, E.M., RAICHLE, M.E., ROBINS,
E., BUTLER, F.K., HERSCOVITCH, P., &
FOX, P. (1986). The application
of positron emission tomography to the study
of panic disorder. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 143, 469-477.
ROUX W.,(1888), Bietrage zur Entwicklungsmechanick
des Embryo. 5. Uber die
kuntsliche Hervorbringung halber
Embryonen durch Zerstorung einer der beiden
ersten Furchungskugein, sowie
uber die Nachentwicklung der fehlenden
Koperhalfte., Virchows Arch.
Path. Anat. Physiol., 64, 113-154, 246-291
SILBERMAN E.K. & WEINGARTNER
H,(1986). Hemispheric Lateralization of
Functions Related to Emotion.
Brain and Cognition, 5, 322-353
STELMACK R.M. & PLOUFFE L.,(1983),
Introversion-Extraversion: The Bell-
Magendie Law Revisited, Personality
and Individual Differences, Vol. 4, No.
4, 421-427
SWANSON L.W. & COWAN W.M.,(1977),
An Autoradiographic Study of the
Organization of the Efferent
Connections of the Hippocampal Formation in the
Rat., J. Comp. Neurol., 172,
49-84
ZUCKERMAN, M., KUHLMAN, D.M.,
& CAMAC, C. (1988). What lies beyond E and N?
Factor analyses of scales believed
to measure basic dimensions of
personality. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54, 96-107.
ZUCKERMAN, M., KUHLMAN, D.M.,
THORNQUIST, M., & KIERS, H. (1991). Five (or
three) robust questionnaire scale
factors of personality without culture.
Personality and Individual Differences,
12, 929-941.
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S-
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://oocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================================
