1.Does science recognize the innate uniqueness of the person? Citing the sociologists Durkheim, Mead, Montague, Benedict, and John Watson, and the Darwinians Dobzhansky, Dawkins, and E.O.Wilson and the psychologists Pinker, Sternberg ,Gruber, and Renzulli the answer is emphatically “no!”. However, none of the forgoing or any other sociologist, or Darwinian, or psychologist ever performed research or conducted systematic stuiies regarding the nature and behavior of the individual, as an entity, so their opinion is based, not on science but ideology and bias.
2. Is each person innately unique or do we share common traits? Citing Super, Rappaport, Maslow, Murray, Homey, Allport, Bray, McVicker Hunt, Scarr citing Chomsky and Fodor, buttressed by Kierkegaard, Hillman, NIetzche. Herzberg, William James, and Charles Taylor contrary positive views. are presented. But again to my knowledge, their conclusions are based on personal experience and observation not on a scientific study of the nature and behavior of the person.
3.Does our research of individuals reveal innate uniqueness?Conducting hermeneutic phenomenological studies on four continents during the last five decades of over 50,000 individuals, one-at-a-time, exploring their actions when pursuing activities of unsurpassed personal value and meaning, we discovered
- That every person had been innately endowed with a unique, fixed pattern of gifted and motivated competencies designed to function systemically
- That each pattern contained the same structure, type of content and dynamics, subject to the same laws and principles, yet each pattern and behavior was unique
4.What is the structure and type of content in these behavior patterns?
With extraordinary consistency, the behavior pattern pursued by each person had five
parts, certain categories within each part, and a range of behavioral elements within each
category. Each pattern contained 25 to 35 of these behavioral elements out of several
hundred possibilities.
- One motivational thrust or outcome the person was determined to achieve
- A group of motivated abilities the person was motivated to use
- Certain objects, subjects matter and mechanisms the person used
- Situational circumstances of motivational significance to the person
- Particular ways of operating with others
5.What are the operating characteristics of the behavior pattern?
These consistencies in our research results led to the development of a science of the person which enabled us to comprehend and explain the unique nature of the person and predict his or her behavior, we found:
- That the pattern was irrepressible and therefore predictable, and governed the person’s perception of reality and attempted performance in any job or role.
- That the pattern triggered and colored the person’s emotional reactions, and shaped their personal relationships, communications, social activity and living style.
- That the pattern determined the nature and role of whether and how they operated with others; e.g. as team members, or individualists; as leaders or managers
- That the pattern was stable but subject to considerable growth and development within its parameters
6. The need in HR for a useable and reliable science of persons
As long as there has been a staff role initially called ‘personnel’ then ’employee relations’ and now ‘human resources’ there has been a need for a science of persons through which HR can access and engage the hearts and minds of employees and managers. The need and use for such a Science of Persons among HR practitioners is limitless.
- Screening candidates for hire or promotion
- Diagnosing job misfit as likely causes for operating results
- Assuring productive management of employees
- Improving personal effectiveness
E. Making career management work
F. Facilitating work groups W
- Screening candidates for hire or promotion
Patterns match motivated excellence required on the job and in an employee, so HR is enabled to:
- Define critical Pattern requirements (CRs) of work
- Recruit and screen vs. CRs
- Match candidate Pattern vs. job Pattern
- Facilitate successful offer/ acceptance through utilizing Pattern
- Recommend managing strategy of new employee which utilizes Pattern
- Diagnosing job misfit as likely causes for operating results
Patterns are irrepressible and control perceptions, so HR can:
- Define problem and likely behavioral cause/missing element
- Do a Pattern Report on employee(s) involved and relate to problem
- If group, do profile and relate to problem
- Recommend changes in duties and personnel
- Assuring productive management of employee Patterns
Patterns are key to performance so HR links to job fit in target group
- Recommend redistribution of duties to match strengths
- Review performance objectives to ensure integration with Patterns
- Meet with supervisor and employee(s) to uncover problem areas and develop coping strategies
- Build information system which reveals when employee will run out of motivational gas
- Improving personal effectiveness
Patterns frame development effort, so HR can:
- Suggest assignments which stretch but match employee’s Pattern
- Include participant learning modes in needs assessment program design
- Assure compatibility of learning mode and training requirements
- Review and document relevant ‘outside’ development experiences
- Making career management work
Patterns define potential, enabling HR to:
- Assist employees to make career crossroads decisions
- Counsel employee, matching Patterns with potential jobs
- Train supervisors/employees in career discussions around Patterns
- Build and administer success planning systems Facilitating workgroups
Patterns define what employees are good at and motivated to do, so HR can:
- Screen proposed candidates to assure compatibility with team
- Facilitate sharing and understanding of Patterns
- Observe functioning of groups and reinforce dynamics of Patterns
- Propose strategy for group to benefit from member giftedness
- What is the source of these innate behavior patterns?
The only natural source inevitably claimed as responsible for human beings is Darwinian or Neo Darwinian evolution. Unfortunately for the Darwinians, they never bothered to check their conclusions with the nature and behavior of individuals; understandably since until now, no one was able to define or describe the nature of the person. Using the words of acknowledged authorities in Darwinian theories, the theories collapse in the face of the most obvious of our replicable findings.
Natural Selection is the mechanism in nature which enables evolution. According to Dawkins, behavior patterns among non-human organisms, are not subject to natural selection. If such is true, for example, of nest building behavior observed by WR Taylor, which is a repeating phenomenon, consider the one-of-a-kind pattern which occurs as an unrepeatable, unique phenomenon with every person.
Darwin has challenged society in writing, “that if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modification, my theory would absolutely break down” Clearly the behavior patterns described above are complex and have no ancestral precedent which could be so modified or inherited.
Gould and Lorenz, representative of the Darwinian community, postulate that humans adapt to the environments they encounter and this adaptation is a critical mechanism if Darwinian theories about the causes of evolution, are to be supported. Lewontin ridicules this notion as no longer valid, and asserts that people adapt their environment to fit them (which our findings heartily affirm).
In a related point, Dobzhansky maintains that people change throughout their life in response to their environments. Our data is unwavering on this point. One’s pattern is fixed, growing and developing as a pattern, but stable and unchanging in any fundamental respect.
Or consider E.O.Wilson’s inane gibe at humanity by its void in any observable raison d’etre for the human race except it’s biological compulsions. He goes on, and that it lacks ” any immanent purpose or guidance from agents beyond their immediate environment”.
Considering that there are seven billion of us, when you realize we are individually awash in our unique, purposeful, motivated, intricately designed patterns, such remarks express an arrogant ideology which infects the entire Darwinian community
Regarding a supernatural source for these patterns, I point out the irresistible proof of design without any naturalism to distort the implication; the apparent fact we are programmed to follow the intricate pattern which has been embodied in our heart and mind; and the extraordinary, inexplicable instructions to fulfill a predetermined outcome.
I go on in a similar fashion but ultimately leave two scientists to explain God’s signature in nature (Louis Agassiz) and God’s intention to stay involved as we work out His design (Pierre Teilhard de Chardin)
- The need in HR for a useable and reliable science of persons as long as there has been a staff role initially called ‘personnel’ then ’employee relations’ and now ‘human resources’ there has been a need for a science of persons through which HR can access and engage the hearts and minds of employees and managers. The need is beyond great, whether it is in;
- assisting managers in their decision making and supervision,
- diagnosing human sources of operating problems.
- identifying and resolving job fit problems
- representing surplus employees to divisions in need of people
- providing reliable assessment in hiring, promotion, transfer and termination cases
- enable employees to have useful career discussions with supervision
- counsel supervision and employees about effective performance appraisals
- anticipate and resolve potential grievances
- build effective working relationships with operating management
- provide the means for employees to evaluate and apply for job openings
- be available to counsel employees or supervisors with personal problems
Author References
Allport, G. W. (1968) The Person in Psychology. Beacon Press
Bray, D, Campbell,D, and Grant,D (1974) Formative Years in Business, A T & T Co.
Dawkins, R. (1982) The Extended Phenotype. Oxford University Press
Dawkins, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Longman Scientific & Technical
De Chardin P.T. (1960) Le Milieu Divin William Collins Sons & Co.
Dobzhansky, T. (1962) Mankind Evolving. Yale University Press
Gould, S.l (1981) The Mismeasure of Man. Penguin Books
Gould,S.J. (2002) The Structure of Evolutionary Theory Belknap Press (Harvard)
Homey, K. (1950) Neuroses and Human Growth. W. W. Norton
Hunt, J Mc Vicker (1977) Traditional Personality Theory William Kaufmann Inc.
Lewontin, R. (2000) The Triple Helix. Harvard University Press
Lorenz, K. (1965) Evolution and Modifications of Behavior. University of Chicago Press
Maslow, A. (1968) Toward a Psychology of Being. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company
May,R. (1969) Love and Will W W Norton & Company
Mumford, M., Stokes, S. S., Owens, W. A. (1990) Patterns of Life History. Lawrence Erlbaum Murray,
Henry (1973) Facts Which Support the Concept of Need or Drive General Learning Drv.
Norton, D. (1976) Personal Destinies Princeton University Press
Nunnally, J. (1967) Psychometric Theory. McGraw Hill
Pinker, S. (2002) The Blank Slate. Viking Press
Polanyi, M. (1958) Personal Knowledge. University of Chicago Press
Rappaport, D. C. (1959) Psychology: A Study of a Science
Scarr, S. (1981) Race Social Class and Individual Differences Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates
Sternberg, R. J., Davidson, J. E. (ed.) (1986) Conceptions of Giftedness. Cambridge University