Nomothetics is associated with laws of universal validity
The etymology of nomothetics takes us to the medieval Latin nomotheticus , in turn derived from the Greek nomothetikós (which can be translated as “legislative” ). The term refers to the enunciation of general principles or laws that have universal validity .
Nomothetic sciences
The concept is usually used with respect to science whose laws are very stable. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) linked nomothetics to reflective judgment , since it allows natural laws to be unified.
The nomothetic sciences , therefore, work with logical laws . These are the natural sciences that analyze immutable and causal processes . The ideographic sciences , on the other hand, investigate changing events, such as law and sociology .
Nomothetic and ideographic
The opposition between the nomothetic and the ideographic appears in multiple areas. A nomothetic explanation , for example , aims for general understanding, while an idiographic explanation offers a detailed description.
Take the case of psychology . The nomothetic approach seeks to obtain and apply general laws that cover the entire population. The idiographic approach , on the other hand, pursues the individual understanding of each human being.
Typically, the nomothetic method is combined with the idiographic method . By complementing both facets, both the establishment of a causal link between events and the assessment of phenomena are contemplated, which allows the enrichment of knowledge .
If the distinction is maintained, it can be said that a nomothetic science develops general concepts, unlike an idiographic science that focuses on the particular. In the same science, meanwhile, both methods can be used.
Nomothetics in psychology
In the context of a psychology experiment, it is possible to take a nomothetic measurement and then establish a contrast between it and an ipsative one . Ipsative is understood as a test whose scores or measurement scales are the same for all people. They are also said to be "forced", as opposed to a more flexible scale, which allows results closer to the subject's true opinion .
In a personality test , for example, traditional measurement offers us a range of possible answers for each question or statement, as can be seen in the following example: « I am loyal : I strongly agree; OK; I try; slightly disagree; "very much disagree." For the same statement, a pair of ipsative options could be “I am loyal; "I am emotionally stable." This confuses the subject, forcing him to think before responding, unlike the previous case, which can be easy to falsify.
“Ipsative” questions or statements are difficult to answer
These responses, which may vary from one test to another since they appeal to the person's sensitivity , are contrasted with the observations that a psychologist carries out throughout the process; For example, you can take note of a gesture that the subject repeats several times, his physical complexion and other objective data about himself, or the specific characteristics of the environment. These nomothetic measurements are not subjective, any professional should find them, but they serve to place the experiment in a context, which provides the necessary nuances to interpret the ipsatives.
Having said all this, it is clear that the ipsative measures are carried out by the subject, since they are data and information that he himself provides about himself. This leads us to the idea of the differences that can exist between the objective and subjective planes, even when the first arises from the outside and the second, from the inside. Although in general we would say that an assessment from a third party is always subjective, when the subject gives a response related to their emotional traits, their statements may be less objective than the aforementioned observations.