ABSTRACT
In taking stock of the situation I observe how many of us seem so stupefied by admiration of physical science that we believe psychology in order to succeed need only imitate the models, postulates, methods and language of physical science. (Gordon W.Allport)
Pragmatically-minded clinicians will gravitate to those theories and methods that have the greatest heuristic merit and are most relevant to the exigencies of patient care and responsibility. Scientist-practitioners will display limited tolerance for the contributions of academicians whose cogent comments are restricted to the intellectual icons contained in their ivory towers. In terms of a ‘survival of the befitting’, theories that fail to generate techniques which meet the needs of a wide spectrum of the clinical population will soon fall into disfavour-even if elegantly worded and supported by seemingly immaculate data. Thus, Eysenck’s (1947, 1952a, 1953) books on the dimensional analysis of personality, as well as his treatise on Pavlovian theory and psychiatric practice (Eysenck, 1957), which were required readings during my graduate studies in the mid-1950s, have gathered dust in some forgotten corner of my library. On any bookshelf the volumes that are dog-eared from frequent reference by clinicians in search of pragmatic leads are not likely to bear the Eysenckian imprimatur. Consequently, I lost touch with Eysenck’s offerings during the past two decades, but upon accepting the invitation to write this essay, I perused some of his current articles and chapters on behaviour theory and therapy.
