Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the Psychology Podcast with doctor Scott
Speaker 1: Barry Kaufman, where we give you insights into the mind, brain, behavior,
Speaker 1: and creativity. Each episode will feature a new guest who
Speaker 1: will stimulate your mind and give you a greater understanding
Speaker 1: of yourself, others, and the world we live in. Hopefully
Speaker 1: we'll also provide a glimpse into human possibility. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening and enjoy the podcast. So today it is a
Speaker 1: great honor to have Seymour Epstein on the show. Epstein
Speaker 1: is Professor Emeritus of Psychology the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Speaker 1: A noted authority on personality. He has received continuous research
Speaker 1: support from the National Institute of Mental Health for over
Speaker 1: forty years and has received their coveted Merit Award. He's
Speaker 1: published extensively, including the books You're Smarter Than You Think,
Speaker 1: Constructive Thinking, The Key to Emotional Intelligence, and most recently,
Speaker 1: Cognitive Experiential Theory, and Integrative Theory of Personality. Thanks seymore
Speaker 1: for talking to me today. Thanks for inviting me. You're
Speaker 1: one of my intellectual heroes, I guess we could say,
Speaker 1: and a lot of work I did. My dissertation was
Speaker 1: heavily influenced by your theory. I thought we could start
Speaker 1: kind of the roots of this theory that you came
Speaker 1: up with, or even your interest in psychology in the
Speaker 1: first place. When did your interest in psychology begin? When
Speaker 1: I was a student at Brooklyn College of the First
Speaker 1: so I didn't know life should be and I took
Speaker 1: some counseling on it, and I decided I definitely don't
Speaker 1: want psychology, at least that's what he led me to believe.
Speaker 1: And as I thought about it later, I decided that's
Speaker 1: where my heart is, and that's I Alsolf found out
Speaker 1: that there was a program in the THEA for training
Speaker 1: as psychologists and paying them really well at the same time,
Speaker 1: so that was fair. The thing that influenced me. I've
Speaker 1: always I've always been interested why it makes people work
Speaker 1: the way they do. What year we talking here? When
Speaker 1: did you start your PhD training in psychology? I mean
Speaker 1: it was it was a little while ago, right right,
Speaker 1: And I got into Brooklyn College in Brookly when we
Speaker 1: are in nineteen forty eight. Wow, yeah, that's when I
Speaker 1: started there. And then we want to find out. No,
Speaker 1: that's fine, that's good, that's good. So we're talking the
Speaker 1: forties so when you get into psychology, what was hot
Speaker 1: then we're talking behavioralism was the thing of the day, right, yes,
Speaker 1: And so your first encounter with psychology were you know,
Speaker 1: Freud and behavioralism. And this is even pre this is
Speaker 1: pre third wave, this is pre Maslow. Right, So well,
Speaker 1: that's that was what my instructs. Really, Yeah, I didn't
Speaker 1: like it. Why is that? Tell me why he was
Speaker 1: too subjective? He give me very quick examinations in informed
Speaker 1: that he could raise them very easily, true and false
Speaker 1: most of them, right, that kind of thing. And I
Speaker 1: could not never figure out how he figured how he
Speaker 1: determined well it was right? What was wrong? And I
Speaker 1: put down the things that was I felt was right
Speaker 1: when I study, Yes, I wasn't doing so in that class.
Speaker 1: And that's amazing. So Steamer Epstein didn't do that well
Speaker 1: in Abraham Maslow's class. That's an amazing story. So what
Speaker 1: was your final grade? You gotta be, I'll be And
Speaker 1: that was what course was? That was that? Like personality? Yeah? Wow,
Speaker 1: So you did encounter these source of ideas and then
Speaker 1: so tell me about when you started to construct this
Speaker 1: first dual process theory and yeah, tell me about the
Speaker 1: evolution of that theory. Well, when I was a graduate
Speaker 1: student at the University of Wisconsin and my first paper
Speaker 1: I was exploratory. It was what makes people think the
Speaker 1: way they do? That That was the topic I interested
Speaker 1: me always, and two principles that occurred to me. One
Speaker 1: is that we, like other animals, are animals. No Meandy's
Speaker 1: disputed that. And the second fundamental assumption is that although
Speaker 1: we operate with an animal mind in part, we obviously
Speaker 1: have another mind that makes us human. And I decide
Speaker 1: to call that the rational mind. And the other one
Speaker 1: I call the experiential line because it adapts by learning
Speaker 1: from experience. And those two the subjects are basic to
Speaker 1: the harass of the theory. Right This idea of the
Speaker 1: unconscious that you propose was quite different from Freud's notion
Speaker 1: of the unconscious. Right, Yeah, I think freyd is nuts.
Speaker 1: I didn't think so at first, but after I started
Speaker 1: without my theory. Where did he unconscious come from? If
Speaker 1: we're an I don't know, I got I don't know.
Speaker 1: Other animals don't have a conscious mind. They were completely
Speaker 1: with with their unconscious mind by learning from experience. How
Speaker 1: else can the adapt? So I thought that was a
Speaker 1: very important point to emphasize and to realize what the
Speaker 1: limitation was employed. And that's that he has two minds,
Speaker 1: a conscious mind and an unconscious mind. And his unconscious
Speaker 1: mind he got from studying many dreams and himself. And
Speaker 1: that is and he never talks about any know we had.
Speaker 1: Why is that right? It's because uh, animals, if they
Speaker 1: have only those two systems, conscious and unconscious, then they
Speaker 1: UH they the incapable of adapting because the only effective
Speaker 1: system they would have at the unconscious level is not adaptive.
Speaker 1: It's not adapted. If you behave as the unconscious mind
Speaker 1: does by reacting according to your automatic processing, h, you
Speaker 1: wouldn't be able to adapt effectively. Because the Thornian unconscious
Speaker 1: mind does not exist in animals. They have enough unconscious
Speaker 1: they don't have any experiential mine. So I needed to
Speaker 1: find the mind other than the rational mind, an accounting
Speaker 1: for people's unconscious behavior. And the obvious thing to me,
Speaker 1: I think you're self ament. It's very simple. Where would
Speaker 1: an unconscious mind come from the same mind the animal side?
Speaker 1: So we act, we react automatically, we learn automatically from experience,
Speaker 1: and that's not the atact does have its limitations, but
Speaker 1: so there's the rational mind. So neither mind is superior
Speaker 1: to the other. They're both necessary, and in fact we
Speaker 1: operated on a day by day basis with our experiential mind,
Speaker 1: with a sort of mine. So that started the government, right,
Speaker 1: But how did you have that insight? I hadn't just
Speaker 1: see himself Heaven to me, but no one else had it.
Speaker 1: That's amazest me amazingly. Then a hundred years founding Floyd,
Speaker 1: nobody realized that unconscious thinking. There's the experiential system and
Speaker 1: that we share with that of it. So I have
Speaker 1: an assumption of why we have an experiential line, and
Speaker 1: Troyed does not. He doesn't have any explanation of why
Speaker 1: we have an unconscious mind. How was your theory received
Speaker 1: at first? How was how was your theory first received?
Speaker 1: Think they showed my old interest. They didn't make the
Speaker 1: to my door. They still don't. Some real so very
Speaker 1: favorable email. But the field is a whole. It's not
Speaker 1: aboupted my feeling, but will it's the only way to
Speaker 1: feel to go when you look at what the alternatives
Speaker 1: are running along from them. Anything fraud with it unconscious,
Speaker 1: which is unacceptable because it wouldn't work in anyway his
Speaker 1: unconscious mind. Right, That's the way I got started. I
Speaker 1: also got started to influenced my people like Rogers. I
Speaker 1: have a very open mind, and I'm impressed with how
Speaker 1: few people have a very open mind. And that's why
Speaker 1: they did not thinkingized being recognize the animals and have
Speaker 1: a reasoning mind, and that difference differentiates that other animal.
Speaker 1: So that was why I was the beginning when I
Speaker 1: was influent than people like Roger and herself concept. Now
Speaker 1: I knew that all part. And when I die and
Speaker 1: arguing against the self concept except as a descript uh,
Speaker 1: they say it doesn't do anything and it just described
Speaker 1: help people behave Well, I don't think that's true, and
Speaker 1: as I theirn it, so they said, Rodger's view is interesting,
Speaker 1: unacceptable as science. It's not science. It's only a descriptive variable.
Speaker 1: Whereas I like the aspect of the self concept that
Speaker 1: said the experience. Well, I've said people operate automatically in
Speaker 1: a way that is out of their awareness. So that's
Speaker 1: beginning for the unconscious heart. So that's the way I began.
Speaker 1: I said, if we change some of Roberts thinking a
Speaker 1: little bit to have a new theory, and what's unacceptable.
Speaker 1: The theory is considered considered uncterifiable by Roger and by
Speaker 1: all part well. I thought that was electrical limitation. I
Speaker 1: wanted to keep the taction oriented unconscious when that was adapted.
Speaker 1: I mean, justin go firing to say the self concept
Speaker 1: is is automatic wine, but it's only descriptive. So people
Speaker 1: they have no objection against having an unconscious wine. That's
Speaker 1: part of the self concept. So long as the underscient
Speaker 1: aspect of a self answer, I'm not included. Now, how
Speaker 1: can we may Roger's theory? Except how do we have
Speaker 1: to modify the reason? Simple? We do say that people
Speaker 1: react automatically with their animal mind, and that it accounts
Speaker 1: for the experiential system. It's an adaptive system works fine
Speaker 1: around it doesn't, and it sometimes works fine, and sometimes
Speaker 1: it doesn't reveal it. That's the way I began, and
Speaker 1: then I did not intend to build an integrative theory.
Speaker 1: That occurred owing my basic assumption as a new thought
Speaker 1: to me that people are animals and therefore they have
Speaker 1: an experience, and I f the action life and the
Speaker 1: rest of it. That brought run into focus as I
Speaker 1: started to write and wondering what else does listen the case.
Speaker 1: So the rest of the theory was built the time,
Speaker 1: building on my basic assumption and my attraction SAgs self
Speaker 1: times gets me a little modificcate modification line that there's
Speaker 1: an experiential system without the automatically outside of the learning
Speaker 1: the animal mind, and there's a whole lot of reastort
Speaker 1: on the animal mind. And one surprises me is that
Speaker 1: the people who grow in that way in the way
Speaker 1: of accepting and learning, but only with regard two responses.
Speaker 1: Where a little innovation I made is what it is
Speaker 1: learned through conditioning is not only responsive behavior, but only
Speaker 1: over behavior and atso thoughts that are unconscious and at
Speaker 1: that though and are the experiential mine. So the theory
Speaker 1: gradually developed from there. It remains me the learning theorists
Speaker 1: never came up with the idea that there kind of
Speaker 1: self apply for learning cognition beliefs as well as behavior.
Speaker 1: And once you make that astunction, so everything wide open. Right.
Speaker 1: Did you ever meet alport Or Rogers? I was thinking, yes,
Speaker 1: I know, I was visiting professor of Party and I
Speaker 1: got to he's going to be an interesting guy, had
Speaker 1: talked to so he frowly sceness. When I thought of
Speaker 1: about my theory. I was surprised. Oh wow, I'm surprised too. Yeah,
Speaker 1: what about Rogers? I never went Roger. Okay, I good
Speaker 1: kind of son with him, and I like his way
Speaker 1: of thinking. This some limits and I think I think
Speaker 1: it is the solution. You know, I consider the major limits.
Speaker 1: And indeed, I mean you you did propose holistic personality theory. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So that's the reason that I finally decided was a
Speaker 1: link together theory. It's not on my own. It's the
Speaker 1: responses I got to my theory when I get talk
Speaker 1: so sary who identifying So it's a psychologyst would say,
Speaker 1: and his theory as its psycho analysis impact as became
Speaker 1: orry because it doesn't change I say, thinking can cycle analysis,
Speaker 1: and that's nonsense. It does is different from cycleanalysis. But
Speaker 1: not only there's a psychoanalyst in the audience. I say,
Speaker 1: like my theory. Well, not any theorists behavior said thinking
Speaker 1: on my theory quite except about it fits with the
Speaker 1: new theory. Fine, there are a few advancing and once
Speaker 1: we si ton ah, so enough people through different disciplines
Speaker 1: told me that my theory was accept them because it
Speaker 1: was like their theory. Then I fear homely. Now that
Speaker 1: indicates that I the less speak for the integrated. Ye,
Speaker 1: very is different discipline, right, nice series. Right, so that's
Speaker 1: the way. And when did your idea for the constructive
Speaker 1: thinking concept developed? Oh, it's okay, you don't want to
Speaker 1: come up with exact date. It's okay, don't worry about it.
Speaker 1: Just so your idea for your your constructing thinking inventory.
Speaker 1: You found that it was part of your argue. It's
Speaker 1: part of the experiential system. Is that right? Yeah? I
Speaker 1: mean everything is part of about it system. Okay, Well
Speaker 1: it's a degree to which say behavior. So so what
Speaker 1: does it mean to be a good constructive thinker? Experience system?
Speaker 1: That isn't it's the way the automatically react. They got
Speaker 1: that way through automatic conditioning, and you can learn to influence. Yeah,
Speaker 1: experiential thinking. And I write about that term. So the
Speaker 1: automatic thinking very very fundamental in the ex very ancient system.
Speaker 1: And you found that no correlation between IQ and constructive thinking. Oh,
Speaker 1: was surprised. Going to my theory, there should be slightly regative,
Speaker 1: slightly m hmm, negative relationship between there should be a
Speaker 1: slightly positive relationship between the nay, but it's very close
Speaker 1: to to zero our ancient So there are different ones,
Speaker 1: and constructive thinking has a global scale which is similar
Speaker 1: to overall IQ. And in the experiential and yes, not
Speaker 1: only the that aspect to it. The experientiousness is adaptively
Speaker 1: its own unique ways, which are the ways that we
Speaker 1: most of us react most of the time it comes
Speaker 1: across in the street, we don't reason out whether it's
Speaker 1: safe to cross. We do it automatically. That's the way
Speaker 1: moss of behavior is done. Right. So, your recent research
Speaker 1: on the experiential system has shown that it has three
Speaker 1: major components intuition, emotionality, and imagination. Yeah, if imagination is
Speaker 1: part of it, that's not something we share with other animals,
Speaker 1: is it. I know, I think it is. Okay, it
Speaker 1: is animals, never things. I thought images of the people
Speaker 1: right in their head, So it ts make a difference, okay.
Speaker 1: And for your experiential system, emotionality is a core component
Speaker 1: of it, right. Well, that differs from some other theory.
Speaker 1: As you know, there are a lot of dual process
Speaker 1: theories that exist now, Yeah, exactly exactly. Some of the
Speaker 1: inclining that it was their original they said, they like
Speaker 1: have sn theory. Yes, it shares a lot with the A. Yes,
Speaker 1: theory is unique because if it's a theory I assi
Speaker 1: social psychologists, it is addressed in social and psychological issues,
Speaker 1: and theory doesn't have that emphasis. True, Right, that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that their theory preceded mine. Their theory obviously mine,
Speaker 1: and they have to miss interfect some of my stuff
Speaker 1: in order to maintain that position, right, I mean caught
Speaker 1: him in Tiversky is dual process theory. You know you
Speaker 1: predate that theory and that's a very problem. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he corresponded with me. He gives me some credit in
Speaker 1: his first start. Good not after that. Okay, So your
Speaker 1: theory has some deep implications that you've discussed, applications for religion,
Speaker 1: implications for clinical practice. Do you want to discuss some
Speaker 1: of those implications religion? It's obvious what about religious beliefs
Speaker 1: are unrealists like Jesus coming from a Virgin I don't
Speaker 1: believe that one bit or the people who believe in
Speaker 1: those are that. No's able to get two creatures throughout
Speaker 1: the whole world that represented every creature there is is unthinkable.
Speaker 1: You couldn't even do that with a number of bugs.
Speaker 1: There are, there's so many different species and to take
Speaker 1: his bath and get to places that are in the
Speaker 1: d soon. It's hard to believe that it's impossible, of course,
Speaker 1: And to not even north fall and pick up all
Speaker 1: of theirs and then go to the south fall and
Speaker 1: pick up ten wins. That doesn't make much sense that
Speaker 1: people do that in the time you had, with the
Speaker 1: equipment you had. So why do some people take this literally?
Speaker 1: Not everybody? When I test students for my usual experimental subjects,
Speaker 1: so I was stalking about religion, but it's okay. We
Speaker 1: also talk about critical implications. If you want no religion
Speaker 1: is fine. It falls neatly into the operation of the
Speaker 1: experiential system, for sure, So categoric I think English for
Speaker 1: thinking and so on, And I've written a paper on
Speaker 1: that that is being considered the publication that if you like,
Speaker 1: I'll send you a company. Oh please send me a copy. Yes, okay, thanks. So,
Speaker 1: if you have anything you want to explain in the religion,
Speaker 1: anything involved that rationalbody, here, I'll show you how the
Speaker 1: experiential system can account for that would be great. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's great that you can explain that it has such
Speaker 1: a great predictive validity. What about politics do you think
Speaker 1: there's differences in thinking styles amongst different parties very much.
Speaker 1: So yeah, yeah, I see. I've heard watching the debates,
Speaker 1: one woman say Bernie her who Yeah, and she said
Speaker 1: she loves Bernie with her heart and she loves now
Speaker 1: with her mind. There you go experiential and I think
Speaker 1: that everybody has a mixture of both. There's no pure
Speaker 1: experiential rational. It's a matter of how dominant niches in
Speaker 1: a particular situation. That will vary with the person and
Speaker 1: the situation. That's great, so the politician, it's very important.
Speaker 1: The experiential system is very important. The experiential system influences
Speaker 1: people of behavior and thinking, and including conscious thinking. The
Speaker 1: bias is conscious thinking, so that a lot of people's
Speaker 1: rational exploration are rationalization, not careful reason thinking. And then
Speaker 1: what about what do you see for implications for criticals
Speaker 1: psychology the future of clinical psychology. Well, one, I think
Speaker 1: that's the when people would have to change how they
Speaker 1: think in terms of the the clients, of course, and
Speaker 1: that would vary with who they are and what the
Speaker 1: situation is, So context matters a lot. And do you
Speaker 1: see like your theory integrated well with cognitivehavor therapy approaches?
Speaker 1: I could compare my theory to that. Yes, that's the
Speaker 1: theory that comes closest to it. It doesn't have an
Speaker 1: experiential system, right, They dodge that question and they're not
Speaker 1: going to get into that. It's too terror. That's that
Speaker 1: thing with the unconscious mind. We should get into it
Speaker 1: with the experiential Do you say you can't compare it?
Speaker 1: I can can. Yeah. Its main limitation is it does
Speaker 1: not have an experiential system, and therefore it's handly mainly
Speaker 1: things that people can consciously describe. The others they say
Speaker 1: that not interested in it's too company can to deal
Speaker 1: with the unconscious mind, and so they just don't deal
Speaker 1: with that. Right, But what one could use your your
Speaker 1: list of constructive thinking questions as a as a good
Speaker 1: model for psychotherapy, right? Oh yeah, yeah, I think constructive
Speaker 1: thinking should be sought in almost all cases, not innormal
Speaker 1: almost thought. Well because no matter what the source of
Speaker 1: the it is person and almost always benefics from improving
Speaker 1: their constructive thinking. And need to see constructive thinking as
Speaker 1: how does that relate to emotional intelligence? Nice, very well
Speaker 1: to emotional intelligence, except it's experientiousness. It's not all emotions, right,
Speaker 1: I other very fund attributes. I remember in one of
Speaker 1: your books that I really liked on constructive thinking, you
Speaker 1: argue it's a key to emotional intelligence, and you compare
Speaker 1: it to like the solve A model of emotion, the
Speaker 1: Myron solve A model, and I thought that was really neat.
Speaker 1: So you're ninety one years old and you've been you're
Speaker 1: a legend in the field of psychology. Is there any
Speaker 1: further frontiers you still want to you know, achieve or
Speaker 1: anything that you you're working on right now that you
Speaker 1: want to share with the audience. Well, not really contribution.
Speaker 1: I'm booked. I'm the experiential I'm pretty stuffing. Yeah. I
Speaker 1: think it hasn't changed in reference, and so I don't
Speaker 1: have any favor work, and I may write a few
Speaker 1: are in line with that. Great buying that it's a
Speaker 1: different situation. Great, well, thank you for the contribution you've
Speaker 1: made to the field and for being so generous with
Speaker 1: your time today. Oh it's thank you for thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to the Psychology Podcast with doctor Scott Barry Kaufman.
Speaker 1: I hope you found this episode just to stop provoking
Speaker 1: and interesting as I did. If you'd like to read
Speaker 1: the show notes for this episode, or here past episodes.
Speaker 1: You can go to the Psychology Podcast dot com, dot