Wrightsman's Philosophies of Human NatureThis is a featured page

Larry WrightsmanIf we grant that persons carry around their own somewhat idiosyncratic beliefs about human nature, how do we go about conceptualizing, defining, and measuring these beliefs? Larry Wrightsman, professor emeritus at the University of Kansas, seeking to expand this general good-bad characterization of people, identified 6 dimensions of human nature, which he measures in the Philosophies of Human Nature (PHN) questionnaire. These six dimensions are described below.


Many scholars have discussed the issue of human nature: what are fundamental, universal, qualities of the human species—across time, cultures, and situations? These discussions seek to identify the actual nature of humans. For example, biologists (and some psychologists, such as Freud), if asked to describe human nature, believe they are actually describing the fundamental essence of humans and their behaviors; characteristics of people that are invariant across long periods of time and different cultural contexts. They are like physicist describing the particles that comprise matter or astronomers discussing solar system dynamics. They seek out the facts about human beings as real objects that exist in the natural world. But, a related question asks “What are some common assumptions people make about humans, as a species?” Essentially, how is human nature construed? This question is concerned more with how each one of us thinks about, or construes, other people: do you consider people, in general, to be softhearted or cunning? stable or mutable? thoughtful or machinelike? What assumptions do people make about the essential nature of people. The idea of essentialism is that all things have an “essence” or “essential nature,” and that even though these things may be transformed by circumstances, they nonetheless remain true to their essential nature. What do people think is the nature of people, in general? What is their essence?

Assumptions of Human Nature

Herzberg wrote: "No society can exist without an implicit conception of what people are like" (1966, p. 13). We must, to function in the company of others, have some expectation of how they will act and react to us. What can we expect from people? Are most kind and warm, or caution and cold-hearted? Do humans, as a species, share some common attributes, and do these attributes reflect the essence of what it means to be a human being? What would a short list of the essential qualities of a human look like? Obviously, people differ in their assumptions. Pearl Buck, for example, wrote: "My knowledge of people compels me to believe that the normal human heart is born good. . . . If through circumstances it is overcome by evil, it never becomes entirely evil." And nice-guy Carl Rogers described people with such adjectives as”positive, forward-moving, constructive, realistic, trustworthy" (1957, p. 200). Sigmund Freud, on the other hand, held humans in relatively low regard: “with a few exceptions, human nature is basically worthless" (E. Freud, 1960).

If we grant that persons carry around their own somewhat idiosyncratic beliefs about human nature, how do we go about conceptualizing, defining, and measuring these beliefs? Wrightsman, seeking to expand this general good-bad characterization of people, identified 6 dimensions of human nature, which he measures in the questionnaire you completed. These six dimensions are described below.

Trustworthiness vs. Untrustworthiness

Are people basically trustworthy, honest, and responsible, or are they trustworthy, immoral, and irresponsible. While many adopt a positive view of people, evolutionary psychologists, biologists, and others scholars feel that humans are basically aggressive and uncooperative. Some theologies, including Calvinism, note that men and women are born sinful and live in sin.

Altruism vs. selfishness

One of the most debated aspects of human nature concerns our essentially selfish nature. Although some consider most people to be Good Samaritans who are waiting for opportunities to play nice with others, some are more pessimistic when describing our propensity to help others. Each day some new event occurs that causes even those with the most rosy view of human nature to wonder at the accuracy of their conceptions. Consider, for example, the response of many people to the plight of the victims of Hurricane Katrina. And the famous case of the apathy of bystanders in response to the murder of Kitty Genovese. Are we selfish or caring?

Conformity and Independence

Are we wolves, or are we sheep? Although this question did not plunge the groups into profound discussions, it does raise the question about the extent to which people are conformist or individualists. Although American society takes pride in the its democratic heritage and its stress on basic freedoms—of speech, religion, and thought—people often cave to social pressure, preferring to conform rather than deviate. This view was stated in one of its strongest forms in the book, The Organization Man, by William H. Whyte, Jr., in his descriptions of people who succeed by towing the corporate line—by supporting authority rather than challenging it.

Strength of Will and Rationality versus an External Locus of Control and Irrationality

Although sages and experts debate about which needs are most fundamental in human nature, many stress the importance of a sense of control—over outcomes, over situations, over destiny. There are some that feel that humans, though the exercise of their powerful wills and drives, can achieve the goals they set for themselves. Others, however, feel that external circumstances constrain human action to such a degree that intentions are never enough to determine outcome. Wrightman’s scale measures the extent to which one believes that people have control over their own outcomes and understand the motives behind their behavior, but also includes elements of rationality-irrationality. For Wrightman, rationality reflects a degree of self control, and the rule of mind over emotions.

Complexity and Variations

Wrightsman’s final two dimensions are more “meta-philosophies” rather than philosophies of human nature. The fifth dimension pertains to the assumed complexity of people. Even though two people may have similar beliefs about trustworthiness and independence, one might think people are simple (in general) and other consider them to be complex. The sixth dimension pertains to variations across people. Some of us think we are all cogs in a machine, that grinds down our differences. Others look at each person as a unique human with ineffable, unshared qualities.

The Source of Human Nature

These are only the basic “planks” that Wrightsman and others believe many people use as the foundation of their beliefs about human nature. There are, in all likelihood, many others which vary in their acceptance by people. Moreover, we could also consider, in addition to our beliefs about human nature, the source of these basic natures. The idea of “human nature” suggests that, perhaps, the source of this essence is biological or genetic, but not necessarily. If we believe that people, by nature, tend to be gregarious, for example, it may be the press of the circumstances that surround all humans that creates this nature, rather than the emergence of an inborn, instinctive tendency. But that raises another set of issues, doesn’t it?


bwmgal
bwmgal 		Latest page update: made by bwmgal , Sep 27 2008, 11:31 AM EDT (about this update About This Update bwmgal Edited by bwmgal


view changes
- complete history)
Keyword tags: None
More Info: links to this page

Threads for this page

There are no threads for this page.  Be the first to start a new thread.