A SYSTEMS CONCEPTION OF PERSONALITYRemarks by Clare W. Graves on his Levels of Existence Theoryas Presented at the Washington School of Psychiatry, 1971[Originally transcribed by William Lee. Edited with additional comments for use as a seminar handoutby Christopher Cowan with Bill Lee, 1988.Corrected and updated 2002 in Graves: Levels of Human Existence]____________________________________________________Within a systems conception, it becomes possible to integrate everything that has been put down in the literature about human behavior. Within this perspective there is no argument about which theory is "correct"-they all are. The task, instead, is to study how they all are correct and the relationships among them. It is the intent of this theory to take confusing and contradictory information in the field of behavioral science and make sense of it all.I. Beginnings-The Reason for the ResearchIn 1952 Clare W. Graves found he could not go back to the classroom and be a referee in the conflict over whose theory was correct on any given issue. He'd "had it" with psychology as it was, and knew that he either had to reframe the problem or abandon the field. His primary area of concern for research was "the confusion and contradiction, the conflict and controversy" in psychological information and theory. It was his sense that the behavioral sciences were in a mess, and that there was a need for rational order to emerge from the chaos.The first step toward a solution was to find a means through which to study the area of concern. This meant time, facilities, finding the opportunity, and the constraints imposed by one man's lifetime. After considering many possibilities, he decided that..."If I took some area of human behavior about which there is confusion, one in which there is a great deal of controversy and one in which the different points of view conflicted with one another, that possibly I could begin to get the kind of information with which I was concerned."The area he chose for investigation was "what a group of human beings just like you would say is the psychologically healthy human being in operation." He knew going in that there would be conflicts about just what a healthy human being is. It was these very conflicts that were to serve as Graves's vehicle into the realm of conflict, controversy, and confusion which he was concerned.II. The Initial Queries1. Can one substantiate that conflict and contradiction, confusion and controversy are represented in conceptions of psychological health?2. What are the conceptions of psychological health extant in the minds of biologically mature human beings? [Graves's model is based on male and female adults, aged 18-61 years]3. Do the concepts which exist suggest that psychological health should be viewed (a) as a state or condition or (b) as a psychological process?"Some people thought that there was that thing, that something, that one could call psychological health and that, in theory, one could think of the time in the future when we would be able to put down on paper what is the psychologically healthy human being. At the same time, I thought while it is possible that this is not so, it may not be a state or condition-it may be a process."4. What is the essential nature of psychological health if it is a state or condition?"If psychological health is revealed to be a state or condition, can our state of confusion and controversy become, in theory, comprehensible and resolvable by clarifying what is that state which is psychological health?"5. What is the nature of the process of psychological health if the basic research indicates that it should be viewed thus?"If psychological health is revealed to be a process can we, in theory, develop a comprehension of the process that will clarify the troubling confusion and contradiction and, in theory, propose means for the resolution of those befuddlement's in psychological information and theory and the world of human affairs?"III. The Research Questions The general questions above were refined and formulated into a set of research questions. These were to generate the data upon which the general theory is built.1. How do biologically mature human beings conceive of what is the healthy personality?2. Do biologically mature humans have, basically, one major identifiable conception of what is the psychologically healthy adult?3. Do biologically mature humans have more than one conception of what is the healthy personality?4. If adults have several conceptions of healthy personality, are the conceptions classifiable into groups of similar conceptions?5. If the various conceptions are classifiable, how can they be classified? a. by content b. structurally c. functionally[Do people who possess the same or similar conceptions operate the same or differently in similar or dissimilar situations, etc.?]6. Will there be evidence that some one conception of healthy personality stands out as superior to other conceptions? To synthesize the issue, Graves's basic research question was:What will be the nature and character of conceptions of psychological health of biologically mature human beings who are intelligent, but relatively unsophisticated in psychological knowledge in general, and in personality theory in particular?IV. Research Methodology - Collecting Primary DataAt this point in his career, Graves was intensely occupied in his teaching, carrying 2? hours as he began this research. Because of the heavy load, he was virtually compelled to use classroom subjects for his investigations. Since he was working in three schools-one all-male, one all-female, and a male-female adult extension division-he had access to a wide range of subjects. He needed people who knew little of formal psychology, who would not know the names of any personality theories, but who would have some interest in the kinds of questions he needed to raise."If you pick people in the 2nd class in psychology, they are fairly unsophisticated, for it's sure as hell they don't learn much in the first one!" "I had people in the beginning in a class in each of these schools which was entitled the Theory of Normal Personality. [I planned] to teach the theory of normal personality in a manner which will provide the information I am seeking, and then I can go on from there."Graves was to apply his research methodology to eight sets of these students, eight different times. This gave him the body of data he would need to begin exploring the nature of psychological health and the human personality. His approach was unique and impressive. An initial barrier that had to be overcome was getting the conceptions he needed without allowing the students to become contaminated by outside reading, while, in the process, teaching them psychology in what was to prove one of the most successful courses in the schools. His opening statement to his classes gives a clue to how Graves approached this problem."I do not want you to read a thing the first five weeks of this class. I want you to be no further along that you are at the moment you came in here on any kind of study of the field of psychology or the field of personality. We will take the first five weeks to talk in class about what people would put into a conception of a healthy personality. What are the things you would get in such a conception? And you people will share this information with one another."I will tell you, I will just be in here, seeing to it that you people stay on the subject of talking about what is a healthy personality, what one ought to includewhen one talks about a healthy personality in operation. As we proceed through these five weeks I want you to think about your own personal conception of what healthy personality is ...and at the end of these five weeks present to me your paper on your personal conceptions of what is the healthy human being, [the] psychologically healthy human being in operation."He proceeded in that manner and, at the end of the five weeks, collected the materials unbeknown to the students. (Most would not know to this day that they were ever, at any time, in this process or subjects in his study.)"I copied these papers ...then I had set up a kind of grading system that would meet the requirements of the college [which] worked out quite adequately. I [then] handed the conceptions back to these people and proceeded into the second five weeks."In the second five weeks, the students broke into random groups and each person had to present his or her conception of healthy personality to his/her peers. In the process, each received criticism and questions from the peer group. This gave Graves the opportunity to observe the subjects presenting their conceptions of personality. He was able to observe how each behaved when their peers "go after them;" and what those behaviors might be."Now, we had a physical setup where we had a complete communication system by wire-and we had a physical setup with a lot of rooms with one-way mirrors where it was possible for me to observe without the student ever knowing that they were being observed-all doors entered into the observation booths in a way they couldn't know that I was present (if I was quiet!)."So, they had an opportunity to receive criticism from peers. At the end of that five weeks, their instructions were to write a defense of the original conception of healthy personality, or a modification of it as a result of the five weeks experience in the group. This gave Graves the opportunity to see if the conceptions had changed, and how they might have been modified under peer influence.As a next step, the entire class studied various authorities and what they had to say about the concept of a healthy personality. The students were again asked to write a modification or defense of their original conception of the healthy personality. Finally, Graves sat down with randomly selected subjects just to discuss the process, how the students might have changed their conceptions, and what factors might have influenced that change. The eight completed cycles of this process led to the initial data set. The basic data the design had produced thus far included...1. A phenomenal view of certain beliefs of the subjects as to the nature of psychologically healthy behavior.2. Reactions of the subject to peer criticism as shown in defense or modification of conception produced.3. Interaction and reaction behavior of subjects when under peer criticism as observed unbeknown to subjects through one-way mirrors and an inter-communication system.4. Relation to confrontation with authority as shown in second concept defense or modification.5. Some interview data from discussions with randomly selected subjects after the primary experiences (development of and two re-writes of conceptions.)Three key sets within the data would be studied... ...very basic data (the original conceptions) ...modification and defense under peer influence ...modification and defense under authorityA group of secondary questions arose concerning the behavior of the subjects during the studies...1. What will happen to a person's conception of healthy human behavior when he is confronted with criticism of his point of view by his peers who have developed their own conceptions of psychologically healthy behavior?2. What will happen to a person's conception of healthy human behavior when he is confronted with the task of comparing his conception to those which have been developed by authorities in the field?3. How will the subjects behave under peer criticism?V. Processing and Analysis of the DataTo begin to rationalize the data, Graves had panels of independent judges read and classify the conceptions. Their instructions. "Classify them, if you can, in any way." He then took the original classifications and got another, entirely independent group of judges. Their instructions were the same. He used different judges each year for all the [8] years of the collecting of the data. Each group of judges classified all data collected to that point so that it was a process of accumulation. In the first run-through, the first year, the judges came up with two categories with two sub-types each. This same categorization recurred each year, though each panel did not know how the previous year's judges had classified the conceptions.VI. Initial Findings In all runs, approximately 60% of the conceptions fell into two categories with two sub-types each...Deny Self Category [sacrificial] Deny self for reward later Deny self to get acceptance now Express Self Category [expressive] Express self as self desires in a calculating fashion and at the expense of others Express self as self desires but not at the expense of othersTo further illustrate, Graves provides some examples of these conceptions... Deny self or sacrifice now in order to get reward later. Work hard to become something, deny the self now to get into heaven (or something of that nature).Deny self to get acceptance now. (Deny yourself going to the movie you want to see and go to the one your friend wants- you to in order that he will like you right now.) Express self as self desires in a calculating fashion and at the expense of others. (But be careful along the way so the guy doesn't turn on you. He sucks as much as he can out of the other person, but is very careful not to go so jar that the other reacts strongly) [Graves found a number of conceptions along this line at the time, and concluded that it had great significance for the American culture as a whole.)Express self as self desires, but not at the expense of others. [This classification stood out clearly from the rest and, in its singularity, led Graves to some of his most outstanding conclusions.]From these four sub-type themes, he began to investigate the various relationships among the conceptions and the intervening forces during the three five-week intervals. The first step was the study and classification of the conceptions, themselves. The second task was the study of the classifications in relation to peer criticism. This included the extent of peer influence, changing under peer influence, acting with peers, and defending and/or modification of the conception. A third step was the study of the classifications in relation to authority criticism. Finally, the peer interaction observations were analyzed.VII. What the Data Began to RevealGraves was surprised by what he'd found..."Here I knew I was in trouble. I knew that I was dealing with what I wanted to deal with, but I didn't think it was as bad as this. Now, just look at what turned out."Here are a few of his observations...a. The sacrifice self now to get later was like the sacrifice self now to get now in seeing healthy personality as adjustable to external source and as denial of self.b. The sacrifice self now to get later was like the sacrifice now to get now group in terms of changing to an expression of self type when change took place centrally.[Some definitions may be useful here. "Central" change at this point in the research means going to one of the other three levels defined in the classifications. "Peripheral" change means keeping within the deny self or express self categories the subject was in originally, but modifying within the category by...intensification of the original beliefbecoming more defensivechanging in what they thought was the proper way to express or deny the self. They would not change from believing that it was healthy to express the self to the belief that denial was healthy, or vice-versa.]c. The sacrifice self now to get later group was not like the sacrifice self now to get now group in terms of effective change forces. The former responded to higher authority; the latter responded to peer authority."When a sacrifice self now to get reward later type wrote the second paper [the paper under the influence of peer criticism], what almost invariably happened was a defense of the original point of view. When we got to the sacrifice self now for reward later under the influence of [higher] authority, we found not only that they changed, but that something else very interesting occurred. Those very people who would not change under peer influence now often changed under authority influence. [An] outstanding example was an orthodox Jew. The only thing he responded to was a Jewish authority; that he accepted. I could bring him a Protestant authority that was saying the exact same thing and it would not touch him. Catholic authority-the same response. Lay authority-wouldn't get to first base. He changed when authority hit him, not with fear, but only when it was a specific kind of authority. You got a rigid defense if it was some other kind of authority." [Graves is further confounded by his results as he digs deeper.]"Now I started to get this crazy mixed up kind of data..."d. The sacrifice now to get later was not like the sacrifice self now to get now in terms of judged freedom to behave.e. The sacrifice now to get later was not like the sacrifice now to get now in terms of the source of authority as to healthy behavior.f. The express self rationally for what self desires without shame or guilt was like the express self but not at the expense of others in seeing healthy personality as expressive of self.g. The express self rationally for what self desires without shame or guilt was like the express self but not at the expense of others in terms of changing to a non-expressive [denial] of self form when central change took place.h. The express self rationally for what self desires without shame or guilt was not like the express self but not at the expense of others in terms of effective change forces. The express self rationally for what self desires without shame or guilt subjects responded only to self-procured information or to self-thought. The express self but not at the expense of others responded to information or thought, regardless of the source. While the express self rationally responded only to self-procured information, the express self but not at the expense of others was different. [The latter group] might change under the influence of a peer or under the influence of authority. Sometimes they mentioned that something had come up in class and that this was a factor that had caused them to sit back and reconsider. They changed no matter where the information came from, with none of the closed-ness [of the former group] present.i. "The express self rationally for what self desires without shame or guilt group was not like the express self but not at the expense of others type in terms of judged freedom of behavior. They [the former group] always expressed themselves like the tethers were on them, tying them down. [They] had a desperate need to be free, but felt very much that they were tied down. The express self but not at the expense of others subjects never argued about the methodology we were using, never felt that they were being bound by the goals that someone else had set up. On the other hand, they would say that if it looks like we'd made a mistake somewhere in moving in a direction, they didn't try to break away from anything."j. The express self rationally for what self desires without shame or guilt type was not like the express self but not at the expense of others in terms of taking advantage of others. "This came out particularly in the peer situation where they were receiving peer criticism. [It became] most difficult on the subjects when they had one, two, or three of these express self calculatedly [characters] in the group. [Sometimes] the guy would try and take over the show and try to tell the other guy what his conception was, and try to run it for him. [In other cases] he would sit there and watch and actually come out many times and say, "Well, I'm learning how to handle you; I see what your weaknesses are." And he'd begin to work on the guy. He'd just sit there waiting for this person to show some kind of weakness that would enable him to get an advantage."So, here is a conflicting set of data. This conflicting data, however, started to make some sense when the change data was combined with the freedom-to-behave-in-a-novel situation data. Now, if one hypothesized that adult man moved from fewer degrees of behavioral freedom to more degrees of behavioral freedom, he had dictated to him the hierarchy from......sacrifice now to get later (set a)......to express self rationally for what the self desires without shame or guilt (set b)......to sacrifice now to get now (set b).......to express self but not at the expense of others (Set a)......to adjust self to existential realities (a possible set c).But this was still the germinal stage of an idea. It was necessary to explore further. When this data took the peculiar character noted, several other studies were carried out in an attempt to see if further information might possibly clarify the conflict in the data and support the idea of systems. The change data was then investigated in more detail. Some basic results of peer and authority criticism led to the appearance of the sequence...Deny self (a) [now for reward later] changed to... Express self (a) [and take advantage of others] to...Deny self (b) [to get acceptance now] to...Express self (b) [not at other's expense] to... Deny self (c) to conform of existential realities [a conception not in the original data].VIII. Perhaps There's No Such Thing as Psychological HealthGraves wrote. "In 1959 I got the shock of my life. When this express self but not at the expense of others (which is very much like Maslow's Self-Actualizing man, Rogers's Fully Functioning Person, etc.) person was studied again, [some of them] began to deny that that was a healthy human being. I had people show up who said that they used to believe that this was a healthy human being, but that they no longer believed it. In other words, I had a new category, a new description of healthy human behavior, a new conception, appear in the midst of the work.If you think ahead a little bit, this really created a tremendous problem because the "fully functioning person", is this the healthy person? The "self-actualizing person is this the healthy person? In other words, Rogers and Maslow conceived of the healthy human being as the end, an ultimately achievable state of being which some could hope to attain.What are you going to do when your data says that this state (which is the 'healthy' human being) is a state that some people begin to cast aside. This opens up the idea that psychological health is a process, and not a state of being or set of behaviors. And that there isn't any such thing as psychological health, [for] it is an illusion, and we have to begin to think along that line if we are going to understand human behavior."IX. A New Category Emerges"Now, at this time, as things changed in the colleges and human beings who were previously deprived of the opportunity to enter into college [began to do so], I started to get a new conception, another one, one that I had not previously gotten. That was: Express self impulsively at any cost. To illustrate, one of these started off with. "Doc, the world is a Goddamned jungle and any healthy man knows it. It's the survival of the fittest." This is the way the conception started out."Conceptions similar to this started to appear enough for them to be sorted out by the later judges as a distinct category. Upon checking previous years' data, Graves found other scattered samples of this type of conception, so it became another category for those conceptions, as well. He also discovered that when it changed, "low and behold, it was the category that changed [when central change occurred] into deny self now to get reward later." At this point the idea arose that psychological health must be part of a process. [The data clearly suggested] that it is a hierarchical process, and that it is open-ended. The emerging pattern was...Express self impulsively at any costDeny self now for later rewardExpress self for self gain, but calculatedlyDeny self now to get acceptance nowExpress self, but not at the expense of othersDeny self to existential realitiesIt next occurred to Graves that perhaps he was not dealing with psychological health, but that the conceptions actually reflected personality systems in miniature. He was seeing a group of micro-theories about what the healthy human being is like. The focus of his research was now sharpened markedly; the search was on.X. The Research Enters a New PhaseGraves was fortunate in that most of the subjects in his earlier classroom research continued with their studies. Most went onto take Industrial and Abnormal Psychology courses with him. Thus, the bulk of his population remained available for more intensive scrutiny. This longitudinal consistency was to prove vital to his work, for the idea that the classifications represented personality systems meant that the he had to study the people, rather than just their conceptions of the healthy personality."Now keep in mind that the people did not know what was going on. I had to collect ... psychometric data without their having any idea what 1 was interested in. And I had to contrive the collection of this data in such a way that it certainly seemed a reasonable part of what I was doing in the course I was teaching." [Recall that this was the middle 1950s.]I administered a number of different psychological tests to the people in the Abnormal Psychology class ...under the statement that 'you're going to have the opportunity to take certain psychological tests, to learn something about yourself, and to see what diagnosis in like in the field of psychology.In Organizational Psychology, I contrived a number of behavioral situations involving the subject matter of organizational [and] industrial [settings] and put these people into these situations. I would take people with similar conceptions of healthy personality and put them into particular situations, then with others in the same situation but in different categories, and then see what happened.'Graves gathered all the observational data himself. While this reduced the possibility of contamination, it also meant that he was unable to get complete data on all subjects at all times. He made wire audio tapes of some sessions, but these were used mostly for recording notes and observations. In addition, the quality was often poor and the system unreliable. The data-gathering was arduous. His notes would indicate... "He did this, so and so did that, and [I'd] try to put it together later. [There were] no computers at this time, [so it was a] long process of observing and analyzing data."Thus was Graves able to gather data from numerous psychological tests, as well as simulations in which subjects having various conceptions of psychological health were mixed together. He had eight sets of quantitative data.1. Group results on standardized tests.2. How subjects with similar conceptions organized to solve problems."For example, when I put a group together I'd say to them. 'Now, 1 want you to solve these problems; you organize to get it done.' Then I would observe to see how they organized themselves [to deal with] the problem."3. How subjects with similar conceptions interacted with each other.4. How subjects with similar conceptions worked toward solution of the problem. 5. How long, on average, it took each group to find answers.6. How many solutions each group found. [Express self but not at the expense of others (GI) found more solutions than all others put together.]7. Quality of answers found by groups. [All found good answers, but differed as to how and quantity.]8. Average time of finding solutions."Now, try to gut yourself- in my position. I had given a. number of psychometric tests and put them in a number of situations where they had been measured on a large number of dimensions." The quantity of data was almost overwhelming. Yet, Graves took the mean scores he'd obtained and began to rank-order the results.On measures of Cognitive Complexity......the sacrifice now for reward later had the lowest mean score... ...next highest score was express self calculatedly......next highest mean score was sacrifice for approval now......and express self with consideration was the next one.However, there was no essential difference in intelligence rankings. Graves claims that "subsequent studies have indicated that those systems that are described in the Journal of Humanistic Psychology do not arise from intelligence. The highest correlation that I or anyone else [1971J who has been playing around when I was [late 1950's, early 1960's] or now [is 0.15 or below]. The collected data displayed a number of interesting trends. Without going into specifics as to the exact personality dimensions involved, Graves reported a number of trends... a...increase in amount of dimension from system to system ...decrease in amount of dimension from system to system...increase quantitatively with time...decrease quantitatively with timeb...some dimensions have a quantitative trend (There isn't much difference and then, suddenly, there is a quantitative difference.)c...some dimensions of personality are system specific (The same in most systems, but quantitatively different in one specific system.)d...some dimensions of personality are cyclic in development (Come in, go out, come in, go out again)e...some dimensions of personality have a cyclic trend to them"At this point with the data, I tried to rationalize my data within all of the existing theories of personality with which I was acquainted. I [always] had amounts of data left over unaccounted for by any theory of personality with which I tried to rationalize my data. So I said to myself, 'Just let the data talk; let the data tell you what personality should essentially be.' And, basically, it said." The data directed Graves to conceptualize the systems as derived from two components [express self and deny self conceptions]. His decision "was not made capriciously. It was made because my data required the systems to be so represented."The data said:.a. Conceptualize adult behavior so as to allow for no variation in certain psychological dimensions, such as intelligence and temperament.b. Conceptualize adult behavior so as to allow for quantitative variation in some dimensions-authoritarianism, dogmatism [for example].c. Conceptualize adult behavior in an alternating wave-like fashion, allowing for repetition of theme. [This was derived from the change and organizational data, the different ways the people in different systems organized.]d. Conceptualize adult behavior so that every other system is similar to but at the same time different from its alternative. [Again, derived from the change data.]e. Conceptualize adult behavior so that each system has its specifics, so that each system has a quality all its own. [From the interaction data.]f. Conceptualize adult behavior so that certain systems are more externally oriented while others are internally oriented. [From the express self, deny self data.]g. Conceptualize adult behavior so as to show increased degrees of behavioral freedom in each successive system, particularly in the express self not at the expense of others system. [Freedom to behave and problem solving data.]The problem solving data provided an important insight. His approach was. "Here are some problems. You organize the problems. There are many answers to the problems (to be solved), and every answer is not the same." The problems [developed at the University of Michigan were presented to both-deny self and express -self groups.Graves structured the results around:...how many solutions did they come up with?...what was the average time it took the group to arrive at an answer/solution?...how did they organize in order to come by the solution?"The data stopped me cold for a while. I didn't t know what to do with it!" The express self but not at the expense of others group......found more solutions than all the others put together....the quality of their solutions was better than the other groups....time required to arrive at a solution was much better.[They were] "very, very different ...incredibly different."Graves was again forced to review his data. He tried to make a judgment as to whether one person was wiser than another, but the data held; he couldn't find any difference. Yet, one group had come up with more answers, better answers, and in less time than the others."So I had to conceptualize that a sudden and almost unbelievable change takes place in human behavior when the individual begins to believe that psychological health should be both expressive of self and taking care of the other human being at the same time. When a human being starts to think in that manner, a personality reorganization which is almost unbelievable takes place. I could not find any significant differences [in intelligence, temperament, etc.], yet these people were better."XI. The Broad Implications"The single most important thing, in my mind, in the field of behavioral sciences at the present time, and I would say this generally for the welfare of mankind, is .for the government to wake up and get all of this information together ...You would be amazed at the papers [letters] I have where a man buried in a university up in Canada reads an article of mine and says, "I hid this thing away ten years ago because everyone thought I was crazy ...Now there is an incredible amount of information-tremendous-along. this line. It is ready to be used in approaching human problems; and there is no effort being put forth to bring this information [together]. If there is anything we need, it is this sort of thing-bring it together ... There is Jean ___ in Montreal, for instance. Who is listening to what the man has to say? Good God, one of the most important men in Canada ...We have arrived at a point in time when an idea can come up in any field-rat psychologists or human psychologists, physicist or whatever-it all seems to be pointing in the same direction."XII. Graves on a Theoretical Conception of Personality"We are conceptualizing personality in a form quite different from anything we have conceived before, and I have, first of all, to choose a beginning point for conceptualization. I started with this factor of the cyclic dimension that has shown up. [Graves cites one of his research approaches which led to the cyclic conception.] One of the studies which we conducted, which I conducted, along the way, was a rough study of the relation of general socioeconomic data [about a person] to [that person's] conception of a healthy personality. And, in general, I found the lower the socioeconomic status of the individual, the more his conception of healthy personality tended to be low in the hierarchy of conceptions that I had set up from this research. So it looks as if a person's conception of healthy personality (and then generalizing from that to a miniature system of personality to [an overall] system of personality) was a function of his having experienced the solution of certain problems the human being runs into when he tries to stay alive. The lower the conception of healthy personality in the hierarchy established [in the research], the closer to being vital were the problems the human being was confronted with.Now, with that and the other data, I had to begin to try to conceptualize. I chose as a beginning of it this- cyclic facet and said that these data say that there-- are two major components in personality which change with time. They have the character that they spurt and then plateau for a period of time, and then they spurt and then plateau again.""I couldn't account for the cyclic facet any other way. I said the data indicate that some people are attempting to make this world fit them, and some people are trying to fit themselves to the world. That is, express self and deny self categories. And so I said, man's personality develops by periods of spurts and plateaus of certain basic components in the brain.This is a depiction of part of that. It depicts the spurting and the leveling off which accounts for the cyclic factor in that data. The solid line accounts for the fact that some of the systems are adjustive systems, and some of them are expressive. When the dotted line is in a state of ascendancy, that is the man's expressive system. So, 1 - 3 - 5 - 7 are self-expressive systems."The 2 - 4 - 6 - 8 and, I hypothesize, the future 10 - 12 - 14 systems are adjustive systems. The first one is trying to adjust to the world as he finds it, rather than change it-trying to get along with it, trying to belong to it.' [Graves apparently gave a summation of Abraham Maslow's point of view here. He goes on to discuss the relationship of his research to Maslow's.] You should know that Maslow came around to my point. If you look at some of his later writings, you will see that he accepted both (1) the cyclic idea that there were more than one kind of expressive system and more than one kind of belonging system and (2) that the system is open ended. We finally, after fighting this over for eight years, came to a fundamental agreement along that line.So we are representing here, you see, that in my data it said that there are systems that respond change-wise to outside authority. But, my data said that the deny self to get now category responds to authority in the fullest sense of the word-higher authority. My data said the 6th system, that is, the deny self to get now, responds to peer authority. So they are alike, all in the same family. They have even numbers because they both change under the influence of authority.This we will see subsequently, psychotherapeutically. Consider, for instance, the data I have in relation to the thousands of drug problems. [These generalizations are] not entirely true, but many involved in the drug problem appear to be in there [because they are] making the transition from the 51h system. These data say that if you are going to help them to make the transition from the 51h to the 6th system, the only authority that will be effective will be peer authority.So we picked up that part of the data [indicating] that some systems respoind to one kind of authority, and another system responds to another kind of authority. But, they always respond to authority if they are even-numbered systems.Now my data also said, and this is very important; that the degrees of behavioral freedom of the human being increase as we move up the levels of human existence, that he has more choices, that at the lowest levels of human existence the choices he can make are very limited.Now the reason this is important is that if you believe, as I do, that behavior must ultimately be [based] in the brain, then I've got to have some way of accounting for the fact that, in the brain of man, the choices are limited at the lowest level of human existence."XIII. On the Model, as Depicted Graphically"Each system is increasing in size as we move up. The seventh system represents by its size [that] there should be more space within the lines there than would be included in systems 1-2-3-4-5-6 -- all together. [The graphic appears thus] to account for this tremendous jump, [this] tremendous change in behavior I ran into when I put them in those problemsolving situations."[Graves's original drawings, reproduced later, do not actually make his point visually. He remarked that..."if this were drawn properly, it isn't t quite proper"...the relationships of the areas enclosed by the various systems' lines would accurately reflect the variations in conceptual space.]I'm not going to the details of this. Anyhow, I tried to represent here the basic change in the data that were dictated to me as some kind of a pictographic story of what personality is like. [He continues to refer to the diagram of emerging systems.]And I tried to show that on the base line there, these changes take place as the person has less and less vital problems to deal with, so N represents the most vital problems of the human being. O, P, Q, R, S, T, U are less vital, in a sense, but are different kinds of existential problems.XIV. Are These Systems Located within the Brain?"Now, I had to say that this is based in the brain. (Remember that I was working back in time.) I hypothesized that the brain of man must be structured some way or another-probably functionally, not physically-into a series of hierarchically ordered, dynamic neurological systems. [I further suggested that] someone ought to be able to identify the system of the brain that runs man when N condition prevails.Then, when he has solved the problems in the N condition, there ought to be identifiable in the brain of man the B system which man operates under when he is trying to solve the O problems. And there should be in the brain of man the C system which somehow or another takes over and organizes the behavior of the organism after he has solved the O problems and when he is dealing with the P problems of existence.I now define the N problems [as] those problems involving the operation of imperative, periodic physiological needs of the organism. And I now hypothesize that there is a functional system in the brain that specifically relates to the task of running the vital processes, periodic in nature in the organism.And the O problems I now define as those problems involving the physiology of the organism which do not have the characteristic of periodicity in them. In other words, the problems of shelter. These are the problems the human being is striving to solve at that time, and that gave something distinct, demonstrably distinct, about the A system, that it would be different not only in its structure or its network in the brain, but it would also be different in terms of the stimuli which will activate it.[Further], that only certain stimuli will cause that A system to run. That is, it is alert to certain information or, as I put it in my current writings, we are equipped by nature with certain information processing devices and certain decision making equipment to handle in an hierarchically ordered way a series of problems of human existence.And so I say the A system can be demonstrated to be distinct, and I say that you can set up experiments which will show you that if you use one kind of stimulation, you don't activate that system. We have the methodology for doing this. If you use another kind of stimulation, you can activate the B system, but you won't activate the A, and you won't activate the C.Now, I hypothesized that a long time ago. (I now have a 4-page bibliography which supports my contention.) There is in the literature ...the proof that the systems are there, that they are different systems. [Part of the support comes from learning theory, part from Graves's observations of his own subjects' learning behavior. He concluded that...]He learns one way in system A; he learns another way in system B; he learns another way in system C. These studies and my own work I believe now show that the learning process in the brain......under the A system is habituation...under the B system is Pavlovian conditioning...under the C is operant or instrumental conditioning ...under the D is avoidance conditioning...under the FS (6th) is the operational learning process (Bandura}

We learn differently in each system. We are equipped by nature to learn this way when the system is such and such, and not that way.Now, when you think in terms of therapy, if the C system is running the organism and it is alert to learn only through operant conditioning, what are we fiddling around with Freudian therapy for when we have that kind of person? If you have the D system dominant, what are we fiddling around with Skinner for when we have Freudian techniques?If we can ever get this information tossed out we are going to be on our way to what I would call constructive and humanistic control of human behavior. I'm not out to get Skinner, just a very different way to work with and bring about change in human behavior.[There are studies which] ...show that in the B system, for example, what it responds to is variation in the same sensory modality. If you want to activate the B system, you increase light or decrease light. [You] increase or decrease sound. But you would never use a pattern of lights, or a pattern of sounds, or a pattern of sound and light together, because that will activate the C system, but won't turn the B system on.So, different stimuli turn on different systems. You can place electrodes in the brain where the centrality of these systems are, and you can get [responses] out if you put a certain kind of stimulus in there, but you will not get activity if you put another kind of stimulus in there. Now, this, you see, is one part of the system. We're trying to see how the brain is like. In Graves's view, the brain is a structural system, perhaps a bunch of structures or whatever, that are arranged in a system. He tried to get away from the idea that somewhere in the brain there lies, in toto, the A system. Instead, "there is a central point, apparently, and then it ramifies out through the rest of the brain in some way. But functionally, there is an A system, and a B system, and a C and a D and an E and an F, etc. "And to handle the data that this new conception of healthy personality that I had never run into before and no one else had run into before [presented me], I had to open up this brain and say, 'Look, there are an awful lot of swells in here, and an awful lot of permutations and combinations that take place.Therefore, this is very possibly an open-ended system and we are just chasing a will-o'-thewisp whenever we're trying to produce a healthy personality because as soon as we produce a person who functions well in one system, alas, he doesn't want to be that kind of a human being any longer.He wants to start behaving [in) a new and different way and we have to learn the process to know where he is going ...so we can keep up with the guy. Because, you see, I've got the A B C D E F systems, and I've got the conditions that seem to change; but, I haven't got any clear relationships between them. I've just got two things.What's going to bring about the interrelationships? Remember, my data indicated that no one changed unless he had something that pushed him. But it also indicated that there is a factor of improved conditions for existence in the element of change. [Because of the data]...'I had to hypothesize that if I was going to have a conception of personality that dealt with the facts as we know them in psychology today, that some people don't have systems B C D E F in them. We have [hydro] cephalic monsters, microcephalics whose cortex is arrested and doesn't have the same structure.XV. The Process of Change"So I hypothesized that, if the person has potential, that is, the higher level systems, that's the first factor required to change to a higher system of behavior. The second factor is the solution of the existential problems with which he is faced.But this was not enough for change. What brought about the change? Additional studies show that if a person seemed to have what he thought were his problems of existence solved, and then something came along that loused up his solution, that this was absolutely necessary for change, And this is the old business of dissonance.Some knowledge must come into the field, something must come in here and stir this thing up when it is in a state of equilibrium. But my data indicated that this did not produce the change. What it caused the person to do was to go back and try out his old solutions. He did not go forward, he went in search of some other way, something that would work. But he didn't find it.[The person] ...then would get an idea. I had many experiences in which the student, would report in the course of going over their modification the sort of 'ah-ha!' kind of thing-"Ah-ha! I've started to see this a little differently. There's something here I didn't see before.' [In other words, he got an insight.]But what has all of this to do with the movement from the conditions under which the A system is dominating the behavior of the person and the B system takes over dominating the behavior of the person? There's got to be something else in this brain. There has to be some kind of O - operated switching mechanism, something going on that switches the dominant system in the brain from A to B, and thus into C.Well, I tried out a number of different ideas...cells that could be in the way and atrophied and got out of the way...using the model of the thymus gland ...mechanical ideas ...and other ideas. But none of them would handle the problem of regression at all. So the only thing I can get a hold of here is a reversible chemical process. The brain has to be, therefore, a producer of chemicals."Q&A with DR. CLARE W. GRAVES[The following remarks are drawn from a question-and-answer session that followed Dr. Graves formal presentation at NIMH. Among the participants were William Lee and Dick Wakefield, two good friends of Graves and long-time students of this point of view. Many of the questions are from these two gentlemen. Some of the conversation has been edited for clarity and appropriateness to the context of this document. However, we've made every effort to stay true to the intent of all parties' remarks.].QUESTION. What factors are part of the process of change?[There may well be] biochemical brain activities that are correlates of all psychological activities. [However], I'm not biased in trying to tie the two together. I feel we are not at that point, and that we have to independently work and hope that, at some later time, the correlates will shot up. [Furthermore], I would feel that when you come up against a psychological problem [and you frame that] explanation in terms of brain activity, [such an] explanation is bound to be a model, a pseudo-explanation in terms of the psychological side of it. That by way of introduction.What I was going to ask you about on psychological grounds, in terms of this change from one level of existence to another, and the dissonance, and the solving of problems is. Do you conceptualize something about activity/passivity? What's the difference in the person whose dissonance befalls him and he's pushed into something, as compared with the person who, for whatever reason, can turn toward a new problem somewhat autonomously?GRAVES'S RESPONSE."It depends upon which system he is going from and to. If he is going from expressive to an adjustive, it is a very different thing than if he is going from an adjustive to an expressive. If he is going from an adjustive to an expressive system, you always get the guy out here pulling. It looks as if it is coming from within. If he is going from an expressive to an adjustive system, it appears that your impetus is coming from without. [As evidence of this effect] I show you what some of the specific things are according to my data as you move from one system to another.Suppose we have a person in the P existential state. To affect change in this person, you must have an outside, benevolent authority who figuratively creates a sheer buffer for the human being and says to this human being, "These are your degrees of freedom. You cannot move beyond here; but, if you move in here, you'll stay alive. I'll see to it. I'll take care of you.You set up this kind of situation with the outside force and the person appears to be [in] the system where he is psychic {sic} [psychotic?], but the peculiar thing is the what he is depicting is passivity. He seems to be drawn into a world where 'he has to be different'. This person is seeking to be different.Whereas, if, on the other hand, you have a person where the next step up the ladder is moving out of the DQ system into the ER system, then your change agent has to be one that can stimulate him to break away from the Skinner Box. [You'll need to] run to stay ahead of him as he gets there. I'll describe him more as we get on with it. [The way] you have to behave depends upon where he is going."QUESTION. What is the sequence of change/development?[Is it your] thinking that the individual functions on many levels at one time? [Rather than move sequentially through your developmental stages, might it be that] an aggressive person maybe goes from one level of aggression to another level of aggression without having to go through (the intervening steps]?GRAVES'S RESPONSE."Movement is not necessarily movement from one system to the next, but a subordination. When the BO system takes over, the AN is still there and subordinated in it.And the problems are plural problems-the N problems are plural problems, and the O problems are plural problems. So, we can solve some of the problems at the N level, but not all the problems.[You may only resolve] % and so you can get this mixture. And, in fact, the basic evidence I have is that (except when one begins to approach pathology) [neither I nor any] others who have worked along this line have, as far as I know, [have found] any persons in whom at least 50% of his thinking could not be centralized in a particular system, and then it shades off to where is he going and where has he come from?The temperamental aspect (factor) may very well play a role. I just don't know enough about it at this date to say what role it is. The data says that temperament stays the same across systems-consistent across systems. (And here I might say I am sticking with Sheldon as far as temperament is concerned-cerebrotonic). If this stays constant across systems, then it's got to fit in there somewhere. I just don't know what it is at this date.I just want to come back to the chemical side. You said you feel we shouldn't. My feeling is that we've got to. We must, in that we are already half way across the bridge, moving down the other side. I have another 3-4 page bibliography in support of my conclusions. In fact, the data that the chemical side is there is already in the literature.I conceive this. that the dissonance that comes into the field somehow or another induces the brain to begin to synthesize that kind of organic substance that causes the D system to take over dominance. [I believe that] we will eventually be able to identify what this is, and [I'm] even ready to speculate on what it is.(At birth, the A brain equipment predominates] and seems to produce [certain chemicals], slowly in the beginning; then, it reaches a certain point [and] a quantum jump is made and the shifting to the B system's [becoming] the dominant controlling system in the brain. [It] takes over and the individual becomes a new psychological being, and now begins to run by new laws.QUESTION. What stimulates change?[Is it your point of view that] in response to new stimuli (in the sense of old problems solved plus some dissonance coming in) [that there is something physically] in the brain responsive to these stimuli [and it is this] which them amounts to shifting a system?GRAVES'S RESPONSE. [Physiology & psychology entwined]Yes, and now he learns in a new way, [is] motivated in a new way. I think I am ready to suggest, and I have some evidence, that he has a new physiology, that this is a new psychological being [as well as a] different [physiological] being endocrinologically. One of the major differences between the CP and DQ systems is the ratio between noradrenaline and adrenaline...CP systemz: noradrenaline > adrenaline, whereas...DQ system: adrenaline > noradrenaline. The ratio is switched.This is just one part of the chemistry of the system, then. I am suggesting that there is a very definite difference in the chemistry and that, as the movement from the BO to the CP is made, then the dissonance comes in and stimulates again. The brain [then] produces, synthesizes, a chemical substance that causes the transition to be made and that one of our tasks is, ultimately, to find out what those are.[We must explore] whether the brain-the person-has the ability to produce these. [Graves cites Krech's research at California] They have been able to produce, at the animal level, a shift in animal behavior not unlike this shift by rearing rats in very bad conditions (for rat existence) and comparing them to rats reared in good rat conditions. [Krech and his students] let them grow to adulthood while assessing their behavioral potentials. (They have found) that the potential in the rat that is reared in good conditions is far in excess of the rats reared in poor conditions. [They] then euthanize the rat that has been reared in good conditions, remove the brain, grind it up, and take an extract out of it. [This they] shoot into the brain of the poor condition rat and, low and behold, the rat jumps behaviorally and performance is much better -- 60-70h. "Krech tells me [the rats so treated are] overcoming 60?0% of the difference between the performing levels of the two rats. So, you see, what is it they are shooting into the brain if it isn't a chemical?QUESTION. How do psychology and chemistry interface?In terms of explanations on psychological grounds, you can be allowed the basic assumptions that the brain is basic to functioning psychological behavior. In a certain sense, you don't need the experiment. You know that there has to be the brain biochemical basis for change of behavior, and that when behavior changes, there is some kind of change in the physiological situation.Now, it does tend to [appear that] finding the correlates (which I'm in favor of pursuing) does give some substantiation; but you can't use one to explain the other. The change in the chemical doesn't explain the psychological change. You can't really say which comes first. [It's] probably more complicated than this.GRAVES'S RESPONSE."I do agree with you because this is the way, as I understand it; and I think you can check me on this to bear me out. The greatest advance of modern Physics was when Maxwell reversed and tried to explain electromagnetism in terms of [physical properties]. You see, what I'm trying to do is explain the brain in terms of behavior.I'm reversing this process. I'm saying that I've got behavior. Now I'm going to say what the brain is like. Because man behaves this way, the brain is constructed [thus); I'm not trying to explain behavior in terms of the brain."QUESTION (continues). Maybe my question is not valid. But what I'm trying to get at is [that] when you're working alone with your psychological experiments, and you're trying to conceptualize it, and you come to a block where you can't understand it, and you can't explain it in terms of psychological theory, if, at that point, you jump up and say, "well, it must be something in the brain that changes," I think that's invalid. I think that's what I mean by pseudo-explanation. It's not simply using it as a confirming correlate, a mutually-confirming correlate. I agree that's the important aspect of it. But they're still running kind of on parallel, and we try to make bridges across, but I don't think we can use one to explain the other.GRAVES'S RESPONSE (continues).Well, the studies to which I have been referring are the studies which have to do with moving of behavior in or out at will by changing the chemistry or change the chemistry and move the behavior. Now, these studies exist, and so I'm saying if one can take certain chemicals (as I'm sure many of know is being done at the present time and is being used as a psychiatric treatment) and move aggression in and out of a patient. [Or], as they are doing up at Harvard by the injection of chemicals in animals. If you can find, as studies show and I hypothesize, that, as the level of existence changes, the chemistry changes, then I don't think we can get away from it. These are neither one cause nor effect-they're a system."QUESTION. What are appropriate means for change? [From the] bioengineering standpoint, [if you] cause aggression without organization, [does it] become frustration?GRAVES'S RESPONSE. [on chemistry, structure, & behavior]"Remember, my data is [based on] the phenomenal beliefs of people." Therefore, when working with a person/patient, those beliefs must be taken fully into account. The mindset of the person has a profound effect on the success of treatment modalities.Thus, "if that person believes that change takes place psychologically, and not chemically, then you jolly well better not be messing around with chemical means of changing him. Use a psychological means. This is what I'm concerned with.""Under tension, the endocrines produced more than they should of certain substances, and if you relaxed the tension, these substances would decrease the anxiety would disappear. [When the subjects] used relaxation techniques, the endocrines changed and the anxiety was gone.I think Skinner's work brought all this together. [Subsequent research] ...brings that kind of information together and shows many of the behavioral changes that move in and out as the chemistry of the individual does change.Notice what I'm saying here, and this is the thing that is important to me. It doesn't matter whether you go at this from the structural level and try to explain things in the beginning; it doesn't matter whether you go at it from the chemical level and try to explain things from the beginning; or whether you go at it from the behavioral level.What you are going to find is.(a)...if you start off structurally, you're going to be left with some gaps over here that you can't handle until you've handled it both chemically and behaviorally;(b)...if you start off chemically and try to explain it all, you'll be left with some gaps over here that you can't handle until you deal with the structural and behavioral components;(c)...and if you start off behaviorally, you're going to end up with some gaps you can't handle until you deal with the structural and chemical aspects.So, it isn't one or the other, it's a system. They're all there within my point of view, you see. A system of behavior is roughly akin to the concepts of absolute zero and absolute vacuum in physics. It's something that is never achieved, but is that from which the human being varies. And so I'm saying, in theory, there is a very tied relationship among structure, chemistry, and behavior. If you had pure conditions, with this structure and this chemistry, they you'd get this behavior. If you-had this behavior, you'd get this chemistry and structure. [This is true] ...in theory, but, recognizing that in reality we - are [limited by our instruments], it doesn't exist. Let's use my hypothesized explanation of the difference between the GT (7th) level and the other levels, and what instrumental evidence I have so far for the HU level as a means of test.What I find explains best to me the reason that the people in the GT level behave so much better quantitatively, qualitatively, time-wise, etc., [is] that they are not afraid......not afraid that they're not going to have shelter...not afraid of predatory man CP ...not afraid of God, which is DQ...not afraid of not having status, or not having it, or making it on their own ...not afraid of social rejectionYou've got a man who isn't afraid. Now, we wouldn't deny, would we, that the fear element has a chemical factor in it. Now, move that out of the brain-get it out of there-and what have you got left? This is what I'm saying. [My research] suggests that these basic rules hold all the way through.Now, in the HU level, what evidence do I have there? Well, I've got one piece of evidence I can't run from. The electrical resistance of the skin changes significantly from any other level. Now, I just cannot deny this. They have incredibly different skin resistance. It becomes so high you can hardly get in {sic}. I'm talking about something that is 2, 3, 4 standard deviations; this thing has really jumped. The electrical resistance of the skin goes up incredibly.Now, what do I find behaviorally in these people? What many people are attempting to achieve through psychedelic drugs. I find that you can turn off other levels of consciousness at will. He can go out of this world and go off into other levels of consciousness and come back at will.Instrumentally, you have that and, I'd say well, now. If you have that change in the electrical resistance, I think there are going to be some other physiological things that are going to turn up with time, and I think some of them are going to be chemical."QUESTION. Does conscious will play a part in change?But, the main thing, the system that causes the individual to go from the other levels, enables him to change his chemistry. [Might it be] that the actual cause of changing from one level to the other is not the chemical change, [but conscious will. Perhaps] the person who can control his chemistry at will can change levels-changing chemistry through conscious will.GRAVES'S RESPONSE. [GT to HU]"Concerning the ideas here, you and I can't sit here today and talk the rest of the day and get anywhere on this one. I'm saying that when the U problems come to be, there'll be something unique about them that we've never run into before. And, I don't think I have any evidence through the first seven systems that would say to me that the behavior difference in the eighth system would be that the system falls apart.I think something new comes into the system, not something goes out of it. I don't know what that will be. This is one of the things I've run into. All that one can say [is that] if there is any such thing to this point of view, [it is] that new systems will appear. And they will follow this "anywhere" system idea that I've laid down-that there will always be something unique. Something new will appear in the system that no one thought would be there before.QUESTION. Does something turn off, as well as on, during change?You once talked about the concept of instead of turning on, something turning off. Repressing from level to level. Is that still involved?GRAVES'S RESPONSE. (switching)"As I said, I had troubles conceptualizing the switching business all along. And the best evidence seems to be at the present time that we might use a Christmas tree here as our vehicle for visualizing it. We have series of strings of lights in a ladder-like form. These lights have the capacity, or, rather, you have the capacity to control the amount of illumination being let out of the lights. So, when man is in the AN stage of affairs, the lowest chain of lights is very bright and the others are all dim. Now, let me move to B. Something comes in that dampens out A and reduces it to a state of dimness. Let's "stand" C & D & E and B becomes the brightest. And now, when C comes on, it is the brightest and D, E, F, G are dimmer; but A & B are still dimmer. That is, something is dampening out so it's a matter of, as a higher system comes on, the lower level system is subordinated.At one time I did say, and I retract that now since data from studies by other people didn't support it, that it was a switching off and on process. It is not a switching on-off process. It's an increasing the intensity of operation and a decreasing of intensity of operation.So, apparently, if we think of this as a chemical switching mechanism, somehow or another you either have to have more than one, or you have to have an "epycolor" as the particular capacity to dampen out the one as the other comes on. Now, at this point, my knowledge of chemistry begins to run out and I'd better shut up. I can only hypothesize what I think it is. QUESTION. Do conditions and tasks influence systems?What you describe suggests to me that you found a lower level system becoming automatic. You do not mean a "phot" concentration, but as though they were laid out and no one had to keep putting on the power so you go to the next level. [This] is in line with our theory of knowledge that we don't think about lower level systems. Do you feel this would vary between tasks and environment?GRAVES'S RESPONSE."What I'm trying to get at here is that there are certain things about my own perceptionthings that I feel comfortable with, certain things I don't feel comfortable with. If you are trying to use this point of view to organize a business or classroom, the first thing you ask is "What is the work you are going to do?" The task is the important determinate. From there you are going on and derive your organizational principles and the like."QUESTION. What's the relationship between problems and actions?[Your diagram suggests a 1.1 relationship. However, this discussion implies that isn't always the case.]GRAVES'S RESPONSE. (referring to the double helix model)"There are so many things here [that] I have never been able to conceive of any one particular pictogram that could possibly show the various variables that are present, and that is why I have this different series to try to show that one system is " " within another system. I have [a diagram] that...shows the progressive/regressive aspects of it.[Thus, for example, while] a man [might be] in the process of moving from the AN to the BO system in respect to problem N, he might be regressing in respect to problem N1, he might be progressing in respect to problem N2, and he might be holding fast in respect to problem N3. In any one moment of time, at least three systems are very important in the behavior of a persona. the one that is dominating b. the one that is coming up c. the one that is going downQUESTION. Does the model reflect Descartes?[You seem to be laboring to construct a model of human behavior in the way of Descartes, not so much empirical as rational.]GRAVES'S RESPONSE."I understand what you hear. As far as I'm concerned, I'm just trying to rationalize that mess of data. I never even gave a hoot nor holler to the thoughts as to whether it was Descartes who said this or that. I set out because I was upset about the conflict and I got. more upset; and to get that monkey off my back, I had to do something. As soon as I got tired of that monkey, he became hard to carry. When this system came along, it explained the data.Now, you may go back and relate it to [Freud], and say that this is different from Descartes; but I had nothing of that sort in mind. [My model is derived from my data].QUESTION. What is it like not to be constrained by theory?It should be easier on your part to do that since you are not operating from a theory dominated point of view. You want to explain something with any means available so the process could be repeated and evaluated.GRAVES'S RESPONSE. (Graves on his approach)"You have to understand one thing about me, and that is when I start anything, I'm an ornery cuss. I believe that no one else knows anything about it. I don't want to know what anyone else knows. I won't read anyone else. I almost got kicked out of college for that any number of times.If I want to know something about something, I'm going to get my own facts and not waste a lot of time. It took all the fun out of ..an experiment to find out what they've already found out in the field. I'd rather find out what the guy had done 100 years ago than find it out myself. This shows what system I operate under."The POINT of VIEW of CLARE W. GRAVES[The following is a collection of remarks by Dr. Graves concerning his point of view. They reflect his thinking on a number of issues.]ON THE LOWER LEVEL SYSTEMS...As a result of the work that I did, I had these systems of behavior which I now refer to as the CP, DQ, ER, FS, and GT, and HU systems. Obviously, there are lower level systems of behavior than the CP system; and though I've had no subjects in my own research which produced data of that kind, I proceeded to do a goodly amount of searching through the anthropological literature. Out of that I constructed the AN and BO systems, and supported the existence of them by subsequently finding in the literature that these neurological systems did exist.One of the problems you run into as you try to come across these data that I used to provide the AN and BO systems is that there seems to be a paucity of information coming out of the American psychological/psychiatric scene. Unless you get in contact with what is going on in other parts of the world where people don't think like most American psychologists and psychiatrists think, you don't come up with these data. And so, you will see (or would see if you had an opportunity to see the studies I draw from) that they come out of the university of Montevideo, in Uruguay, from France, Germany, out of Japan; an awful lot of them are not from this country.Only very recently had anyone in this country begun to really accept that Hernandez Dian (?) down in Montevideo in Uruguay is quite a guy, or that that fellow in France has something worth-while to say.ON SYSTEMS THINKING...So, now we have these eight major systems within the theoretical structure; and if you go into the literature you will find quite a number of people who have this systems point of view in one way or another.But this was still the germinal stage of an idea.have a considerable amount of it in subsequent publications.I have been extending this point of view into the field of learning, and have edited a paper (not published) on the learning systems that are operant in each of the major systems. You have the paper on values. I have published on this in relation to the management of organizations, and have data on how each of the people within each systems structure work and wow one goes about managing the behavior of the individual, or how one goes about organizing for groups. That's the motivational side of it-what motives are the dominate motives in each of the systems.I have material on the various psychological theories that do exist and where they fall within the framework. This is why I said it clarifies the confusion. You can see where the operant conditioning theory is, where classical conditioning theory falls, Adler falls, Jungian theory falls; where orthodox analytic thinking falls, where modern ego-analytic falls; and you can begin to take the various theories of human behavior and order them within this framework.I have data on child rearing. How I could take a child and rear him in such a manner as to have him emerge in adulthood thinking that the DQ way of life is the right and proper way of life. It is quite possible to shunt the child into a system of behavior if you know the principles of child rearing that produce it.I have information on, for example, a group of 7th grade kids. Let's say you find that you have kids in there that are operating at the CP, DQ, ER levels. How best can they learn? How do you actually go about the task of organizing the classroom so that those children can learn and have, in the course of their learning, an optimizing of their chance of moving up the existential staircase? {from the Shalmont school system; work of David Hunt, a former student and part of the Harvey/Hunt/Schroder group; got a truncated systems view on his own}ON PSYCHOPATHOLOGY...What kinds of symptoms appear in what kinds of systems? What is the meaning of the kind of symptom that appears in a particular kind of system? To illustrate, if a person is in a transition from a DQ to ER system and gets a conversion disorder, what kind of a conversion disorder does he get? What does this conversion disorder mean within that system?I find that people who choose the conversion disorder as a means of a resolution of a conflict they are in (when they are in this transition) are always getting a debilitating kind of conversion disorder. That is, they don't get a tic, but a debilitating blindness or paralysis. The thing that is interesting about it is that if they get the debilitating kind of conversion disorder in their life style, they can always carry on in the misery of it all. They notoriously continue to try and struggle on and do.I find, for example, arising out of the CP and ER systems, both what you would call in other psychology's "acting-out" systems, very different kinds of pathologies than you get arising out of the others.The data says, and this is a rather odd one, that suicide is highest in the FS system. The data also says that homicide, as a behavior of man, disappears as the transition is made into the FS system. This is an interesting and suggestive finding.If we could possible work on the problems of human existence in such a manner as to get the mass -of our people beyond-the. ER level of -existence, that-this- is a phenomenon which would disappear.It is -interesting that if that goes, you don't find man without problems because, as I just said, the minute the transition is made into the FS system, suicides increase. There is severe frustration and problems in the individual's life, and he'll take his aggression out on himself; he doesn't take it out on someone else. If a person makes a transition from ER to FS there is a shift in the thought process. When one begins to make this transition, he really honestly and deeply inside himself comes to believe that war is no solution to man's problems.I find people at lower levels who talk about believing that war is not a solution to man's problems. A person centralized in the ER system will say that; but if you study why, he's simply saying it because it is to his personal advantage at this particular time not to have a war. He really doesn't believe that war is not to be done.You see this in particular today. I run into this myself. 'We must not have war in Vietnam but, boy, if those Egyptians start anything with Israel, we're gonna' have it.' He really doesn't believe in not having war. The Vietnam war may be psychologically remote from him; he doesn't have to go there. Even the absolutistic pacifists in the DQ system really are not pacifistic; it's only a matter of time before they become war-like hawks.ON THE PROBLEMS OF ASSESSING SYSTEMS IN PEOPLE...I have been working in the direction of trying to develop some means of assessment which would, in theory, enable the individual to assess the degree of operation of all of the systems in a person at one time so that you could see, in essence, how much of his behavior is CP behavior, how much DQ, how much ER.But, I've run into a problem, and I can't get it solved. It's one of the things which is making me reluctant to hurry out with the book I'm working on, and I don't know whether I'm going to solve it.The problem is this. With any methodology I've been attempting to use, the one thing that stands out, that is diagnostic of a person's being in the CP system, is that he tells me to go to hell. He won't have anything to do with me; and I can't get any data back. If I can get him before he's 14 and before he's become a teen-age sophisticate, I can get some data; and I have some fairly decent data in respect to what the CP is like in his thinking before that age. But once I get beyond that age of 14 I just can't solve this problem.Some suggest I need to have him in an authoritarian system, then he'll do it. Well, I've the most authoritarian system in the world, and that's the prison system, but they tell you to forget it, bud! I've almost come to the point of saying that this is the diagnostic; but this is no good if you're gong to carry on a program of research.You might be interested, as we begin to pursue this, just what some of the data is that I have along this line. Suppose that I go at it in a simple questionnaire form. What are the kinds of things that typify a person in the DQ system and what are the kinds of items that will eventually have to be worked into a questionnaire.Let's look, for example at DQ. Essentially, that which differentiates the DQ system, specifically, from all other systems is the belief that we are controlled by a divine being (or creature or fixture). A person will say, for example, that, in the long run, anything that happens in this world will be in line with the master plan of God. The person in the DQ system apparently has this conception of the universe. An allpowerful being, variously named, all-powerful something-or other, planned the universe, laid down the laws of the universe, and watches each second as the days and hours go by as to whether or not the divine plan laid down is being followed. This divine being either rewards or punishes on the spot, or tacks this up on a score sheet to ultimately decide whether the person shall be rewarded or punished. To elicit this kind of information, you have to develop items which state such a thing as:"I believe that to attain my goals, it is only necessary for me to live the way God would have me live;" or "The dictates of one's religion should be followed with trusting faith;" or "There are some things which God will never permit man to know."These are the kinds of items that will cause the person centralized in the DQ system to say it is so. Another way to look at it is to ask a person in the DQ system, "What do you think about religion?" Alternately, consider using as a referent here the concept of sin as a means of seeing into how a person thinks religiously. Using these referents, you get the picture that in the DQ system there is t the idea of His power, breaking the commandments of God, offending God. Sin is innate in man; man cannot escape it and God forgives us if we are sorry. If you ask them what they think about marriage, the DQ will tend to talk about marriage in terms of its having a religious factor in it. You will tend to see an idealization of marriage. {Graves quotes Harvey, Hunt, and Schroder.}

Remember that when we talked about sin, there was a negation in the ER system of the idea of sin. We should find this negation also in the ER talking about marriage. You get the same when FS talks about marriage. The idea that marriage is good, but you don't get the spiritual/religious basis. In the GT, there is not a negation of marriage, but a simple statement of fact.ON REVOLUTIONS, REVOLUTIONARIES, AND SOCIAL CHANGE...In our society today, you have your BO/CP revolution taking place. In many it is shown in extreme militancy-the highly selfish, destructive, brutally aggressive militancy-that is being shown. Then, you have the revolution which is taking place where this kind of highly selfish, egocentric aggressive behavior is changing into the new and modern form of Puritanism which is called Black Muslimism. The Black Muslim is just a modern version of the Puritan, just as puritanical as the Puritans ever were. This revolution is taking place CP through DQ.We see it very well evidenced in the rather magnificent work that the Black Muslim group did in the Attica Prison during the uprising. If you knew the history of those cast that were in the controlling group there, you soon would recognize that they had been behaving in the CP system prior to that.Then you have this revolution which is taking place that is shown in so many who are simply throwing off middle class values. These middle class values I'm talking about are the values of punctuality hard work, cleanliness, and that sort of thing. You have a great deal of this. I have a very substantial number of them in the throes of this (DQ to ER) in college at this very time.And then you have the revolution which is taking place in which they are throwing off the values of the affluent way of life and going into the FS system. They are casting aside materialism and trying to escape into love. This is the love revolution, the flower revolution.Then you have the revolution which is taking place where people are beginning to say the one thing that really has to go in our society is majority rule, that the evidence has now accumulated that the majority is always wrong. They claim that you have to begin to get away from the idea of equality-it's a revolution against equality-from FS to GT. It says there isn't any evidence in all of science that any two persons were ever born equal, and you'd better start getting with it and work on problems within that point of view. So we have that one going on.We get all mixed up when we talk about the Generation Gap. We've got five of them. If you talk about the revolution of consciousness III, that is only part of the picture. It depends upon what part of the society you're looking at which revolution you're dealing with.ON CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE AUTHORITARIANISM OF FS...Nearly all people, I find, are interested in Consciousness. Many are people who have lost their way in an ER to an FS transition. Now, this gets a little tough. My students played hell with me when I brought this up, they got so angry with me.But, when you go back to the date, you're going to find something interesting-you're going to find that the F3 system. is authoritarian as hell. If you don't think the FS system is authoritarian, just attend the American Association for Humanistic Psychology meetings.I'm just the ornery kind of person this sort of thing happens to. I didnt go this year because I didn't feel as ornery as last year, when I tested it at Miami. Well, last year, I went to the meeting, and here's the story.The so-called free souls come in for this kind of deeper experience and that kind of deeper experience. They come into a bare room with just a floor. The shoes all went over to the side. Well, nasty little creature that I am, I come in and take a look at it and go out and get a chair and bring it back in and sit down."You don't want to sit on this chair," they told me."I wouldn't have brought it in if I didn't want to," said I. "You don't want to be different?" they challenged."I don't care," I replied."Take off your shoes like the rest of us," they demanded. "I don't want to;" and I graciously declined.That's the way FS can be; they push you, and push you, and push you. Just a week ago I was down this way and a gentleman and I walked out of the afternoon meeting. I was loaded down with heavy suitcases and he was, too. We turned to get the car and drive up here (a relatively short distance in DC). "We doe t ride this distance; everyone here walks," FS reprimanded.This person in the FS system appears to be an extreme. It looks like a free system on the surface but, when it comes to the person who is the nonconformist, when it goes beyond their beliefs, those things are extremely hard to take. They rise up against deviation from their standards and ways. A great deal of the current "social revolution" is of this kind. Freedom for all who agree with our point of view.When I told my students who were operating in this system (FS) that they were just about as authoritarian as their highly authoritarian parents (DQ), they were pretty unhappy.ON RELIGION and BELIEFS...In my childhood I had contact with religious people. Even then, and especially later, I saw so much difference in people who share identical beliefs. There are some people who literally believe God is watching every sparrow, counting them all. Others can take the child-like position of being a good boy and getting your reward and going to heaven. There are others in a quite different orientation which I think of in terms of integrity, communion, or something up toward the HU level. Yet, they all can share an identical belief.Many people believe in God. My question is, what's God like? Within ER, many people believe , in the concept of justice. God was the original cause who laid down the laws of the universe and now has left it to man to find out what they are. The role of humankind is to learn about them and use them. God just pushed the. button that started it.Within the DQ perspective, God laid the universe down and he controls the button and he pushes the button all day long. Now, that's a tremendous difference between ER and DQ as to what God is.In the CP system, God is a comforting angel, an all-powerful being who is able to take this world in hand and twist it and make it do what he wants it to do. In this system, the person conceives, at some level, of becoming a god. He wants to be one, to get into the position of being able to control.So, a person can have the belief in God. The question is, How does he believe about God? It's not does he believe or not believe, but how he believes. This is true all down the line. With regard to any concept, you're asking how does he believe? How does he think about this or that?For example, a person deeply centralized in the DQ system will understand the concept of profit. He will believe that a man should work in order to profit. A man in the ER system will also believe in profit, but in a very different way. This is what we're trying to teach.As another example, consider differences in the religious points of view within one denomination. I have some fine Unitarian friends running right from DQ to HU and, man, the difference in those Unitarians is out of this world. They just aren't alike anymore, yet they're still Unitarians.Now, some people just put on a good show. I had a roommate once who I knew quite well. I knew what he was like, and I knew he didn't like the Catholic church. Yet, he was marrying a gal who was a Catholic and he was going to convert. I asked him how he could do this, knowing his views. He said, "Well, man, you know there are bad Catholics as well as good Catholics. If that's what they want, I'll go through the motions. Why let that stand in the way of what I want?"Another way of looking at this issue is through the Atheist philosophy, so typified by absolutistic thinking. Well, within our system of explaining