In response to Lamiell’s (2018) commentary arising from my claim that both character and personality belong to “the discourse of individual differences” (Banicki, 2017, p. 56) some further clarifications are provided. At first, an interdisciplinary project lying behind my original article is sketched and the phrase “individual differences” elucidated as having a non-technical meaning far broader than that connected with individual differences as a specific psychological research paradigm. Then, in turn, Lamiell’s criticism of the notion that the latter can serve as a sole ground for personality psychology is briefly summarised. An attempt is made to simultaneously emphasise the conceptual and logical depth of this criticism and to put into question some of its far-reaching consequences concerning the applicability (or lack thereof) of population-level data at the level of the individual. Finally, a concise remark is made about a specifically philosophical (rather than technically psychological or even psychometrical) approach to the situationism debate.
BanickiK. (2012). Connective conceptual analysis and psychology. Theory & Psychology, 22, 310–323. doi: 10.1177/0959354310383077
2.
BanickiK. (2017). The character–personality distinction: An historical, conceptual, and functional investigation. Theory & Psychology, 27, 50–68. doi: 10.1177/0959354316684689
3.
BelnapN. (2007). Propensities and probabilities. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38, 593–625.
4.
DorisJ. (2002). Lack of character: Personality and moral behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
HarmanG. (1999). Moral philosophy meets social psychology: Virtue ethics and the fundamental attribution error. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 99, 315–331.
6.
HofsteeW. K. B. (2007). Unbehagen in individual differences. A review. Journal of Individual Differences, 28, 252–253. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001.28.4.252
7.
HumeD. (1975). Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1777)
8.
IsenA. M.LevinP. F. (1972). Effect of feeling good on helping: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 384–388.
9.
LamiellJ. T. (1981). Toward an idiothetic psychology of personality. American Psychologist, 36, 276–289.
10.
LamiellJ. T. (1987). The psychology of personality: An epistemological inquiry. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
11.
LamiellJ. T. (2010). Why was there no place for personalistic thinking in 20th century psychology?New Ideas in Psychology, 28, 135–142.
12.
LamiellJ. T. (2013). Statisticism in personality psychologists’ use of trait constructs: What is it? How was it contracted? Is there a cure?New Ideas in Psychology, 31, 65–71.
13.
LamiellJ. T. (2018). On the concepts of character and personality: Correctly interpreting the statistical evidence putatively relevant to the disposition–situation debate. Theory & Psychology, 28, 249–254. doi: 10.1177/0959354317748374
14.
MischelW. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.
15.
SternW. (1911). Die Differentielle Psychologie in ihren methodologischen Grundlagen [Methodological foundations of differential psychology]. Leipzig, Germany: Barth.
16.
WittgensteinL. (1999). Philosophical investigations (AnscombeG. E. M., Trans.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published 1953)
