{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0137434554973822, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0013089005235602095, 'mean_word_length': 5.918552036199095, '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 methodology of psychological biography.

The Methodology of Psychological Biography Even the harshest critics of psychological biography concede that the application of psychology to biography makes sense. Since comprehensive biographical studies inevitably include an analysis of the subject's personality, it is reasonable to carry out such analysis systematically and with psychological sophistication. But, as even the fiercest proponents of psychobiography admit, psychobiographical studies tend to be reductionistic, narrow, and disparaging. A marked disparity exists between the potential and the execution of psychobiography.1 A substantial body of literature now exists which explains this disparity and formulates ways of lessening it; one bibliography includes more than IOO entries pertaining to the methodology of psychobiography.2 This essay synthesizes the work which has been done on the methodology of psychobiography. The focus is on the six principal difficulties that critics have identified as inhering in the psychobiographical approach. The difficulties are discussed sequentially, and strategies which have been suggested for overcoming or at least minimizing each of them are considered. Through this discussion of the suggested ways of coping with the difficulties, an attempt is made to develop a coherent methodological approach, combining several of these strategies, which offers the possibility of decreasing the disparity between the potential and actual execution of psychological biography.