Psychological.

TL;DR: The study explores the differences in personality and political behaviors between Danton and Robespierre, focusing on their contrasting political attitudes despite shared external circumstances. The study aims to establish personality differences and functional relationships between internal and external factors and their impact on political behaviors. However, the study concludes that Kretschmer's psychology is unsuitable to understand these complex relationships, while Sheldon's theory and method of temperament are more susceptible to functional analysis.

Abstract: Pllrpose. Both Danton and Robespierre were born in the petit-bourgeois families, grew up into the practice of law which was the petit-bourgeois occupation, and as revolutionaries belonged to thr Montagnards which represented the petitbourgeois people. Despite these common external circumstances, their political attitudes often differed from each other, finally leading to their fatal collision. How did this happen? Did their internal circumstances, that is, their personalities which might have been different from each other, not play a certain role in this seemingly odd happening? We started our study with these questions in mind. To establish, first, personality differences, if any, between Danton and Robespierre, and, secondly, functional relationships between these conditions and their characteristic political behaviors was the purpose of our study. Instrument. E, Kretschmer, by using the psychology of personality based on his famous constitutional typology, had already done his study on Men oJ gel!ius, which included a few suggestive remarks on the motivating power of Robespierre's moralistic effort in the Revolution. To use Kretschmer's theory and to expand and develop his preliminary study on Robespierre would be a possible way on which we could proceed. We decided, however, not proceed in this way, for his psychology, it seems to us, is unsuitable to und"rstand the complex functional relationships where internal and external "independent variables" codetermine "a dependent variable," that is, a behavior. We have come to this conclusion from the following points: (a) his psychological system, because of his exclusive dependence on intuitive synthesis and categorical dissection, has more unstable and abstract than stable and concrete criteria to define quantitatively his abstracts; (b) in contrast with the segmental drives, he considers temperament entirely immune to environmental conditioning and wanting no external objects which reduces the tension caused by organic deprivation. Meanwhile, Kretschmer's functional inadequacy is basically corrected by Sheldon. He follows Kretschmer in the use of intuitive synthesi~ as basic approach to constitutional structure-function relationships, while he differs from Kretschmer both in his persistent effort to use concrete quantitative criteria as much as possible and in his conceptual orientation of temperament. His taxonomic components of temperament, named viscerotonia, somtotonia, and cerebrotonia, are measured respectively by 20 temperamental traits, each rated on the 7-point scale. The components are stably patterned throughout life, while the traits as their dynamic expressions are sensitive to environmental conditioning, so that there in the components exist gradients which extend from a latent to a manifest extreme. Depending on the predominant environmental pressure, the components may undergo more or less latent and potential, or more or less manifest, surface expression. Moreover, the components have drive-like character and, if their behavioral expression is made too much latent or too long delayed, their owner organism suffers an increased tension which in turn motivates external behavior. Sheldon's temperament is therefore related to organismic adaptive behavior which results from the interplay of environmetaI and constitutional factors. Thus it is found that Sheldon's theory and method of temperament are susceptible to functional analysis in which the temperamental factors are delimited as necessary (but not sufficient or necessary and sufficient) to adaptive behavior, and that we can consider Sheldon's taxonomy of constitutional structure in relation to Freud's dynamics of instinct transformation under the environmental pressures, by having the latter's concept of instinct include the former's temperamental component, in addition to American behaviorists' "drive" which is usually identified by them with Freud's instinct. Because