A Three-Dimensional View of Personality

Title: A Three-Dimensional View of Personality 

Authors: Mayer, John D. Lang, Jenny L. 

Source: Psychological Inquiry. January-March 2011, Vol. 22, Issue 1, p36-39, 4p.

Personal notes: This paper contains some key notions that represent (part of) model-building in the (social) sciences. First, here are some statements to consider:

1. "Consequently, it seems better to speak of the personality system as embedded in..."
2. "It would be elegant and consistent to extend the use of the levels approach..."
3. "We believe that discussing personality's inner function requires a different kind of conceptual tool..."
4. "To be valid, models must cover personality comprehensively, have clear distinctions among divisions, and be scientifically useful."
5. "Their application of multilevel modeling... makes possible clearer communication..."

I'm in no way criticising the scientific traditions of research in psychology, what drew my attention is that these five statements illustrate very clearly the assumptions of (part of) the field. Clearly, theoretical models whether 'validated' by empirical means or presented under argumentative bases, "seem better/worse" to authors, reviewers, editors and possibly readers of psychology studies. The field also has an aesthetic criterion by which these people qualify a model by its elegance and (internal) consistency. Beliefs based on experience and intuition do play an important role in the development of science. Finally, any model is judged by its ability to enable clear communication between researchers -and perhaps also practitioners? Perhaps this and other criteria of "scientific utility" next to the latent assumptions and implications of such ideas should be more clearly discussed in the literature. It is my impression that in psychology and in every other single scientific field that deals with humans, too many assumptions too often remain implicit.

Perhaps, just like "Introduction", "Background", etc sections, journals could require authors to have an "Assumptions" section where they made explicit their own and their field's unspoken beliefs, concepts and terms?

Do People Prefer Curved Objects?

This paper titled "Do People Prefer Curved Objects?" not only has an interesting title, it also provides an interesting point to discuss the aims and claims of design research. I do not have access to this paper at the moment, but will review it and comment as soon as I get a copy.

http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/P_Silvia_Do_2009.pdf

Update: Ok, so I got to read the paper. Not to disrespect the authors or anything, but this paper is like those movies in which the title is enough to get the idea and you really don't need to spend your time reading it all. Two experiments were conducted, the results are a) as expected and b) inconclusive. Yes, people do prefer curved objects but it's much more complicated than that.