{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01910828025477707, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.95575221238938, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Psychobiographer’s Authority: Questions of Interpretive Scope and Logic

Two charges are often raised against psychobiographers’ authority (as well as popularized analytic case formulations): reductionism and causal overreach. The first pertains to interpretations that rely exclusively on analytic concepts but ignore the essential contributions made by neighboring disciplines, such as history, to the elucidation of lives lived elsewhere or in the past. The second charge is sometimes stimulated by exaggerated interpretive claims, but often reflects the critic’s misunderstanding of the logical structure of genetic explanations. Three case studies illustrate reductionism as well as safeguards against it. They also support a critical discussion of the alleged logical defect.