44: The Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory of Personality

great honor to have Seymour Epstein on the show. Epstein is Professor Emeritus of Psychology the University of Massachusetts Amherst. A noted authority on personality. He has received continuous research support from the National Institute of Mental Health for over forty years and has received their coveted Merit Award. He's published extensively, including the books You're Smarter Than You Think, Constructive Thinking, The Key to Emotional Intelligence, and most recently,

Cognitive Experiential Theory, and Integrative Theory of Personality. Thanks seymore for talking to me today. Thanks for inviting me. You're one of my intellectual heroes, I guess we could say, and a lot of work I did. My dissertation was heavily influenced by your theory. I thought we could start kind of the roots of this theory that you came up with, or even your interest in psychology in the

first place. When did your interest in psychology begin? When I was a student at Brooklyn College of the First so I didn't know life should be and I took some counseling on it, and I decided I definitely don't want psychology, at least that's what he led me to believe. And as I thought about it later, I decided that's where my heart is, and that's I Alsolf found out that there was a program in the THEA for training as psychologists and paying them really well at the same time,

so that was fair. The thing that influenced me. I've always I've always been interested why it makes people work the way they do. What year we talking here? When did you start your PhD training in psychology? I mean it was it was a little while ago, right right, And I got into Brooklyn College in Brookly when we are in nineteen forty eight. Wow, yeah, that's when I started there. And then we want to find out. No,

that's fine, that's good, that's good. So we're talking the forties so when you get into psychology, what was hot then we're talking behavioralism was the thing of the day, right, yes, And so your first encounter with psychology were you know, Freud and behavioralism. And this is even pre this is pre third wave, this is pre Maslow. Right, So well, that's that was what my instructs. Really, Yeah, I didn't like it. Why is that? Tell me why he was

too subjective? He give me very quick examinations in informed that he could raise them very easily, true and false most of them, right, that kind of thing. And I could not never figure out how he figured how he determined well it was right? What was wrong? And I put down the things that was I felt was right when I study, Yes, I wasn't doing so in that class. And that's amazing. So Steamer Epstein didn't do that well in Abraham Maslow's class. That's an amazing story. So what

was your final grade? You gotta be, I'll be And that was what course was? That was that? Like personality? Yeah? Wow, So you did encounter these source of ideas and then so tell me about when you started to construct this first dual process theory and yeah, tell me about the evolution of that theory. Well, when I was a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin and my first paper I was exploratory. It was what makes people think the way they do? That That was the topic I interested

me always, and two principles that occurred to me. One is that we, like other animals, are animals. No Meandy's disputed that. And the second fundamental assumption is that although we operate with an animal mind in part, we obviously have another mind that makes us human. And I decide to call that the rational mind. And the other one I call the experiential line because it adapts by learning from experience. And those two the subjects are basic to

the harass of the theory. Right This idea of the unconscious that you propose was quite different from Freud's notion of the unconscious. Right, Yeah, I think freyd is nuts. I didn't think so at first, but after I started without my theory. Where did he unconscious come from? If we're an I don't know, I got I don't know. Other animals don't have a conscious mind. They were completely with with their unconscious mind by learning from experience. How

else can the adapt? So I thought that was a very important point to emphasize and to realize what the limitation was employed. And that's that he has two minds, a conscious mind and an unconscious mind. And his unconscious mind he got from studying many dreams and himself. And that is and he never talks about any know we had.

Why is that right? It's because uh, animals, if they have only those two systems, conscious and unconscious, then they UH they the incapable of adapting because the only effective system they would have at the unconscious level is not adaptive. It's not adapted. If you behave as the unconscious mind does by reacting according to your automatic processing, h, you wouldn't be able to adapt effectively. Because the Thornian unconscious mind does not exist in animals. They have enough unconscious

they don't have any experiential mine. So I needed to find the mind other than the rational mind, an accounting for people's unconscious behavior. And the obvious thing to me, I think you're self ament. It's very simple. Where would an unconscious mind come from the same mind the animal side? So we act, we react automatically, we learn automatically from experience, and that's not the atact does have its limitations, but so there's the rational mind. So neither mind is superior

to the other. They're both necessary, and in fact we operated on a day by day basis with our experiential mind, with a sort of mine. So that started the government, right, But how did you have that insight? I hadn't just see himself Heaven to me, but no one else had it. That's amazest me amazingly. Then a hundred years founding Floyd, nobody realized that unconscious thinking. There's the experiential system and

that we share with that of it. So I have an assumption of why we have an experiential line, and Troyed does not. He doesn't have any explanation of why we have an unconscious mind. How was your theory received at first? How was how was your theory first received? Think they showed my old interest. They didn't make the to my door. They still don't. Some real so very

favorable email. But the field is a whole. It's not aboupted my feeling, but will it's the only way to feel to go when you look at what the alternatives are running along from them. Anything fraud with it unconscious, which is unacceptable because it wouldn't work in anyway his unconscious mind. Right, That's the way I got started. I also got started to influenced my people like Rogers. I have a very open mind, and I'm impressed with how

few people have a very open mind. And that's why they did not thinkingized being recognize the animals and have a reasoning mind, and that difference differentiates that other animal. So that was why I was the beginning when I was influent than people like Roger and herself concept. Now

I knew that all part. And when I die and arguing against the self concept except as a descript uh, they say it doesn't do anything and it just described help people behave Well, I don't think that's true, and as I theirn it, so they said, Rodger's view is interesting, unacceptable as science. It's not science. It's only a descriptive variable. Whereas I like the aspect of the self concept that said the experience. Well, I've said people operate automatically in

a way that is out of their awareness. So that's beginning for the unconscious heart. So that's the way I began. I said, if we change some of Roberts thinking a little bit to have a new theory, and what's unacceptable. The theory is considered considered uncterifiable by Roger and by all part well. I thought that was electrical limitation. I wanted to keep the taction oriented unconscious when that was adapted. I mean, justin go firing to say the self concept

is is automatic wine, but it's only descriptive. So people they have no objection against having an unconscious wine. That's part of the self concept. So long as the underscient aspect of a self answer, I'm not included. Now, how can we may Roger's theory? Except how do we have to modify the reason? Simple? We do say that people react automatically with their animal mind, and that it accounts

for the experiential system. It's an adaptive system works fine around it doesn't, and it sometimes works fine, and sometimes it doesn't reveal it. That's the way I began, and then I did not intend to build an integrative theory. That occurred owing my basic assumption as a new thought to me that people are animals and therefore they have an experience, and I f the action life and the rest of it. That brought run into focus as I started to write and wondering what else does listen the case.

So the rest of the theory was built the time, building on my basic assumption and my attraction SAgs self times gets me a little modificcate modification line that there's an experiential system without the automatically outside of the learning the animal mind, and there's a whole lot of reastort on the animal mind. And one surprises me is that the people who grow in that way in the way of accepting and learning, but only with regard two responses.

Where a little innovation I made is what it is learned through conditioning is not only responsive behavior, but only over behavior and atso thoughts that are unconscious and at that though and are the experiential mine. So the theory gradually developed from there. It remains me the learning theorists never came up with the idea that there kind of self apply for learning cognition beliefs as well as behavior. And once you make that astunction, so everything wide open. Right.

Did you ever meet alport Or Rogers? I was thinking, yes, I know, I was visiting professor of Party and I got to he's going to be an interesting guy, had talked to so he frowly sceness. When I thought of about my theory. I was surprised. Oh wow, I'm surprised too. Yeah, what about Rogers? I never went Roger. Okay, I good kind of son with him, and I like his way of thinking. This some limits and I think I think it is the solution. You know, I consider the major limits.

And indeed, I mean you you did propose holistic personality theory. Yeah. So that's the reason that I finally decided was a link together theory. It's not on my own. It's the responses I got to my theory when I get talk so sary who identifying So it's a psychologyst would say, and his theory as its psycho analysis impact as became orry because it doesn't change I say, thinking can cycle analysis, and that's nonsense. It does is different from cycleanalysis. But

not only there's a psychoanalyst in the audience. I say, like my theory. Well, not any theorists behavior said thinking on my theory quite except about it fits with the new theory. Fine, there are a few advancing and once we si ton ah, so enough people through different disciplines told me that my theory was accept them because it was like their theory. Then I fear homely. Now that indicates that I the less speak for the integrated. Ye,

very is different discipline, right, nice series. Right, so that's the way. And when did your idea for the constructive thinking concept developed? Oh, it's okay, you don't want to come up with exact date. It's okay, don't worry about it. Just so your idea for your your constructing thinking inventory. You found that it was part of your argue. It's part of the experiential system. Is that right? Yeah? I mean everything is part of about it system. Okay, Well

it's a degree to which say behavior. So so what does it mean to be a good constructive thinker? Experience system? That isn't it's the way the automatically react. They got that way through automatic conditioning, and you can learn to influence. Yeah, experiential thinking. And I write about that term. So the automatic thinking very very fundamental in the ex very ancient system. And you found that no correlation between IQ and constructive thinking. Oh,

was surprised. Going to my theory, there should be slightly regative, slightly m hmm, negative relationship between there should be a slightly positive relationship between the nay, but it's very close to to zero our ancient So there are different ones, and constructive thinking has a global scale which is similar to overall IQ. And in the experiential and yes, not

only the that aspect to it. The experientiousness is adaptively its own unique ways, which are the ways that we most of us react most of the time it comes across in the street, we don't reason out whether it's safe to cross. We do it automatically. That's the way moss of behavior is done. Right. So, your recent research on the experiential system has shown that it has three

major components intuition, emotionality, and imagination. Yeah, if imagination is part of it, that's not something we share with other animals, is it. I know, I think it is. Okay, it is animals, never things. I thought images of the people right in their head, So it ts make a difference, okay. And for your experiential system, emotionality is a core component of it, right. Well, that differs from some other theory. As you know, there are a lot of dual process

theories that exist now, Yeah, exactly exactly. Some of the inclining that it was their original they said, they like have sn theory. Yes, it shares a lot with the A. Yes, theory is unique because if it's a theory I assi social psychologists, it is addressed in social and psychological issues, and theory doesn't have that emphasis. True, Right, that doesn't

mean that their theory preceded mine. Their theory obviously mine, and they have to miss interfect some of my stuff in order to maintain that position, right, I mean caught him in Tiversky is dual process theory. You know you predate that theory and that's a very problem. Yeah. Yeah, he corresponded with me. He gives me some credit in his first start. Good not after that. Okay, So your theory has some deep implications that you've discussed, applications for religion,

implications for clinical practice. Do you want to discuss some of those implications religion? It's obvious what about religious beliefs are unrealists like Jesus coming from a Virgin I don't believe that one bit or the people who believe in those are that. No's able to get two creatures throughout the whole world that represented every creature there is is unthinkable. You couldn't even do that with a number of bugs.

There are, there's so many different species and to take his bath and get to places that are in the d soon. It's hard to believe that it's impossible, of course, And to not even north fall and pick up all of theirs and then go to the south fall and pick up ten wins. That doesn't make much sense that people do that in the time you had, with the equipment you had. So why do some people take this literally? Not everybody? When I test students for my usual experimental subjects,

so I was stalking about religion, but it's okay. We also talk about critical implications. If you want no religion is fine. It falls neatly into the operation of the experiential system, for sure, So categoric I think English for thinking and so on, And I've written a paper on that that is being considered the publication that if you like,

I'll send you a company. Oh please send me a copy. Yes, okay, thanks. So, if you have anything you want to explain in the religion, anything involved that rationalbody, here, I'll show you how the experiential system can account for that would be great. I mean, it's great that you can explain that it has such a great predictive validity. What about politics do you think there's differences in thinking styles amongst different parties very much.

So yeah, yeah, I see. I've heard watching the debates, one woman say Bernie her who Yeah, and she said she loves Bernie with her heart and she loves now with her mind. There you go experiential and I think that everybody has a mixture of both. There's no pure experiential rational. It's a matter of how dominant niches in a particular situation. That will vary with the person and the situation. That's great, so the politician, it's very important.

The experiential system is very important. The experiential system influences people of behavior and thinking, and including conscious thinking. The bias is conscious thinking, so that a lot of people's rational exploration are rationalization, not careful reason thinking. And then what about what do you see for implications for criticals

psychology the future of clinical psychology. Well, one, I think that's the when people would have to change how they think in terms of the the clients, of course, and that would vary with who they are and what the situation is, So context matters a lot. And do you see like your theory integrated well with cognitivehavor therapy approaches? I could compare my theory to that. Yes, that's the

theory that comes closest to it. It doesn't have an experiential system, right, They dodge that question and they're not going to get into that. It's too terror. That's that thing with the unconscious mind. We should get into it with the experiential Do you say you can't compare it? I can can. Yeah. Its main limitation is it does not have an experiential system, and therefore it's handly mainly

things that people can consciously describe. The others they say that not interested in it's too company can to deal with the unconscious mind, and so they just don't deal with that. Right, But what one could use your your list of constructive thinking questions as a as a good model for psychotherapy, right? Oh yeah, yeah, I think constructive thinking should be sought in almost all cases, not innormal

almost thought. Well because no matter what the source of the it is person and almost always benefics from improving their constructive thinking. And need to see constructive thinking as how does that relate to emotional intelligence? Nice, very well to emotional intelligence, except it's experientiousness. It's not all emotions, right,

I other very fund attributes. I remember in one of your books that I really liked on constructive thinking, you argue it's a key to emotional intelligence, and you compare it to like the solve A model of emotion, the Myron solve A model, and I thought that was really neat. So you're ninety one years old and you've been you're a legend in the field of psychology. Is there any further frontiers you still want to you know, achieve or anything that you you're working on right now that you

want to share with the audience. Well, not really contribution. I'm booked. I'm the experiential I'm pretty stuffing. Yeah. I think it hasn't changed in reference, and so I don't have any favor work, and I may write a few are in line with that. Great buying that it's a different situation. Great, well, thank you for the contribution you've made to the field and for being so generous with

your time today. Oh it's thank you for thanks for listening to the Psychology Podcast with doctor Scott Barry Kaufman. I hope you found this episode just to stop provoking and interesting as I did. If you'd like to read the show notes for this episode, or here past episodes. You can go to the Psychology Podcast dot com, dot