First, we will explain the meaning of the expression “of fundamental value for science”. This expression means that the monograph and the studies it contains belong to the category of fundamental or basic studies and that, in this respect, they should be distinguished from applied or applicative studies: this is the only possible meaning of the expression in question. Another thing we need to know is that this monograph of ours is composed of ten studies. The first study, “Achievement Motivation Considered in Cross-Section with Personality Variables Derived from the Theory of Open/Closed Society”, was created on the basis of a master’s thesis that was defended at the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade before a committee consisting of, at the very least, fully competent professors, and we will note that this work has since been deepened and revised in certain respects, and that the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade is absolutely the most serious address for this science in the region. The other nine studies were created in different circumstances that we assessed as suitable for the psychology of achievement as a topic, and they have a fundamental value for science only through the medium of the first study, and therefore have it in an elliptical manner. Also, after a long ban on publication in the journal “Sociološka luča” to which it was submitted, the study “How to Protect Psychology in Montenegro from Temptation”, as one of the nine mentioned, was recently published in the cultural supplement “Vijesti” and some dust and even a storm arose around it; the author of the review was even threatened with a kind of revenge (imagine, revenge for a critical text!) which, however, the rector of the University of Montenegro prevented with his authority; this emancipatory gesture was then followed by the vice-rector of the University of Montenegro and the dean of the Faculty of Philosophy: until when will this emancipation of the University of Montenegro last, is it only until the end of the rector's term Prof. Vladimir Božović or longer or forever, remains to be seen. In any case, the qualification of elements of fascism and Stalinism that were recognized in the cultural supplement of Vijesti in one of the reactions from the psychology department should be understood as a serious warning for the psychology department itself, for the Faculty of Philosophy and for the University of Montenegro.
So (see question in subtitle):
I The monograph in its first study “holds together” theories from several scientific fields: from psychology, sociology, political philosophy, theory of history, economics, and finally epistemology - and this keeps them in a substantive connection with the motivation (and society) of achievement as constructs for which it has been empirically argued that they are causally linked to social and also individual prosperity and then to social and individual stagnation. Namely, since it was originally only one of twenty-some motives on the list he compiled Henri Mari, an American psychologist, the achievement motive (AM) is Dejvid MekKleland, also an American psychologist, subjected it to experimental and correlational tests, after which the theory of achievement penetrated the fields of economics, history, sociology... which led to the construct of the "society of achievement". This is a construct that argues that a high MOP in a population, community or state entails high economic and then other - cognitive, scientific, cultural... achievements and then a prosperous population, community or state, while a low MOP undermines all of this and things stagnate, or even, as proven by historical examples, go straight to ruin. A striking and more recent historical example is the collapse of the Yugoslav state in the 1990s, and the connection of this collapse with the theory of achievement is indicated by the fact that in a Belgrade study, which was conducted in 1981 on a representative and adequate sample, a low MOP was established among Yugoslav youth (about this Havelka, N.. and Lazarevic, Lj.), while measurements from the 1990s indicated an even lower MOP among schoolchildren in Montenegro (more on this Simunovic, M. "Open Society and Achievement Society", 2001.)
In the sense explained above, the monograph appears to be in line with the principle/slogan that reads: “how to open up the social sciences?” - and all of this represents one aspect that shows that this monograph has a fundamental/basic value for science. The sciences mentioned go beyond the “pre-stabilized harmony”, which in earlier times could be considered to connect them.
II The monograph also, in the first study in particular, and this more precisely means empirically and, even more precisely, this means that it examines, in the form of a rigorous correlational study, the connections between motivation (and society) of achievement with the construct of an open/closed society as a construct that explains the democratic, or rather anti-democratic, orientation of human communities and societies: as far as the author is aware, this study is the first, and so far the only one, that has as its subject the examination of such a connection - and this is another aspect that suggests that the monograph "On the Psychology of Achievement" has fundamental value for science.
III The theory of the open/closed society in its original form was not formulated as empirical - it is identified as the philosophy of the open society - and its concepts do not have an operational status. In our study, the concepts of this philosophy are operationally defined using several psychological dimensions: A (authoritarianism), T (traditionalism), K (conformism), as a dimension of anti-democratic orientation, then DIT (moral reasoning test) and IAR (locus of control of reinforcement), i.e. using a certain number of tests/questionnaires that measure the said dimensions, and such an operational intervention is the first and, as far as we know, the only one so far, carried out in our study/our research - this is the third aspect that suggests that this monograph has a fundamental value for science.
IV 1. The application of the given tests/questionnaires that operationalize both the achievement construct and the constructs/dimensions derived from the theory of open/closed society yielded correlations that are somewhat surprising, so the findings obtained are empirically suggested as discoveries - and certainly the discovery is represented by the zero correlations between the achievement motive and the dimensions of anti-democratic orientation, and this is especially understood in relation to the dominant/modern and even fashionable notions of democracy as a condition that is both necessary and sufficient for social prosperity: this empirical finding represents the fourth aspect that suggests that the monograph "On the Psychology of Achievement" has fundamental value for science.
IV 2. The empirical finding of positive correlations of achievement motives with internal locus of control of reinforcement, as well as with moral reasoning, is a finding that indicates which aspects of personality (and these are the “core” aspects of personality) are relied upon for the socialization of an individual in an achievement society: this is another aspect (the fifth) that makes the monograph “On the Psychology of Achievement” of fundamental value for science. As for our sample (and probably Montenegro), the finding on the dimension of moral reasoning is not glorious: our morality is, on average, only at the third of the total six levels. (And please, consider that I have communicated this local result to you in strict confidence - and with the request that it not be spread further and remain between us).
In 1. The study/monograph introduces as a relatively new construct the “countermotivation” which, with (for now) three defined tendencies (1. the tendency not to avoid outcomes without achievement; 2. the tendency to avoid outcomes with achievement; 3. the tendency to achieve outcomes without achievement), in a kind of progression, seeks to explain how self-destructive behavioral potentials develop and, consequently, how many adverse effects develop that can appear when the first proactive and then reactive potentials/directions of motivation, as otherwise confirmed by the theory of evolution, are exhausted. With the three tendencies mentioned (and completely indifferent to the theory of evolution), the construct of countermotivation is only halfway to its operational definition, but it is precisely with the said three tendencies that it defines/ensures the precise use of interviews and clinical exploration: on the way to full operationalization, the construct of countermotivation represents the sixth aspect that suggests that the monograph “On the Psychology of Achievement” is of fundamental value for science.
In 2. 3. In explaining/exposing the construct “locus of control of reinforcement”, our study resorts to extrapolation on the basis of which the said construct is recognized/manifested in “historical necessity” as one of the derivatives of the external locus, which actualizes its effects in “learned helplessness”, with which the psychological state in the population whose mentality our basic study seeks to define is determined; “conspiracy theories” represent another offshoot of the external locus of control and, together with learned helplessness, simultaneously constitute another, i.e. seventh aspect that gives the monograph “On the Psychology of Achievement” the qualification of fundamental value for science (and it seems to me that this aspect has been confirmed in other studies as well). Theoretically, along with the theory of types Bertranda Rasela, derived and how, based on the theory of the double bind, dialectical thinking is shown to be the cause of mental split, so here too we have the right to qualify it as "of fundamental importance to science".
(Ends next Saturday)
Bonus video:
