My Debt to Hans Eysenck
David Lester
It used to be, and probably still is, that a mention of Hans Eysenck, at least in the United States, would cause other psychologists to roll their eyes. He wasn’t liked, and often not respected as a psychologist. Yes, he was testy and always replied to articles that were critical of his research. He took unpopular positions, such as the genetic basis for personality traits, including intelligence. (My senior thesis advisor, Alice Heim, used to argue that intelligence is best viewed as a personality trait, not as some indispensable ability that enables one to survive in this world.) And, of course people like to gloat over cases where his collaborators might have invented their data (Pelosi, 2019). But I owe Hand Eysenck a debt, maybe two debts.
It is unusual to change majors in England. We specialize at the age of 16, and I chose physics, chemistry and mathematics. That is all one studies for the next two or three years. (It’s three years if you want to go to Oxbridge.) Part 1 of my BA degree is in physics and mathematics for I had dropped chemistry at university. After a year and a half, I had a crisis. Was I good enough to be a physicist? One cannot change majors to anything that is taught in high school, for one would be 4½ years behind. That left the social sciences. I choose psychology.
I went to the library and got a book on psychology, about which I knew nothing. It sounded interesting. The book was dated about 1920. My Director of Studies (Alan Welford) wrote back immediately telling me not to read it! He suggested books by Eysenck. Uses and Abuses of Psychology, Sense and Nonsense in Psychology, and Fact and Fiction in Psychology. Eventually I read them all, and they convinced me that I had not made a drastic mistake in changing majors, and they helped me withstand the first few lectures on physiological psychology (by Lawrence Weiskrantz). I didn’t learn how to spell emigdala (amygdala) for another year.
Eysenck’s books are interesting, scientific, and relevant. He hated psychoanalysis, which I have come to appreciate (and believe in), and I do use some of his examples to ridicule psychoanalysis in my lectures when I am covering other perspectives. In my research and theorizing, I have used Eysenck’s theories and his personality inventory. They have great value. My advice to those who roll their eyes when Eysenck’s name in mentioned, is make more of an effort to be as successful and important a psychologist as he was.
My second debt was to Eysenck is in his role as editor of Personality & Individual Differences, his journal. Over the years, he accepted many of my papers and encouraged my research. Yes, of course, he was eager for citations, and it was important to cite his papers in one’s articles. In this, however, he was way ahead of his time, for now citations are critical for academic success in the better universities. Recently, it has been suggested that Google Scholar citations, one’s h-index and one’s i10-index should be part of any application for an academic position, tenure or promotion.
I intended to visit him in London and make his personal acquaintance, but he died (in 1997) before I made good on my intention. I always showed an interview with him in my course on theories of personality, and that is as close as I got to Hans Eysenck. But I remain in his debt.
Reference
Pelosi, A. J. (2019). Personality and fatal diseases. Journal
of Health Psychology, 24, 421-439.
