Observable behavior and environment are more reliably knowable than inner personality structure.

Evidence

The phrase that captured the new scientific perspective was the “Other-One.” Human behavior would yield to scientific research only if psychologists learned to view humans as others. This “viewpoint of observation” was an absolute requirement for an “objective science of human behavior” that ceased to confuse inner experience with external action. Central to this new viewpoint was his notion of the human being as organism. The human being is recast as an “it,” an “other,” a “they” of organisms: an “organism among organisms,” distinguishable from a lettuce, a moose, or an inchworm only in degree of complexity. A scientific psychology would restrict its interests to the social and therefore visible behaviors of this “organism as an organism.” It would be “the study of the life of the Other-One—but of his life in so far as it is of social significance rather than as it is of significance for himself.… We are studying the Other-One in preference to Our-Selves.” — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 1151 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Humans were selected for behavioral malleability, not fixedness — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 178; Ambiguous environments let personality shape behavior while structured ones constrain it. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1141; Ordinary personality dimensions have substantial genetic sources, not just environment — Bob Altemeyer, The Authoritarian Specter, 889 (+9 more)

Broader Connections