We explain nature, understand spiritual life (explain nature, but understand spiritual life) – Wilhelm Dilthey, 1894
When I first started studying psychology, I noticed that there were two different ideas about what the field should achieve. It was a goal to understand human experience, and the second was needed explain behavior. It was in the late 1970s at a provincial state university in what was then West Germany. At that time, academic psychology was being rebuilt along American lines. Many traditional paradigms were forgotten or abandoned in part because of the Nazi experience. American ideas and sentiments now dictate how psychology should be done.
This is a concept to understand may be an important goal of the psychological enterprise once popular in Germany. This idea was introduced by scholars such as Wilhelm Dilthey (1894; see epigraph) and further developed by phenomenologists (e.g., Husserl, 1973; this work was published posthumously) and their disciples, the existentialists (e.g., Jaspers, 1913), but was later abandoned.Th century Over time, the goal of explanation, control, and prediction replaced the goal of understanding (Krueger, 2020). Analytical purpose overcame descriptive purpose. On the American scene, Carl Rogers (eg, 1942) was one of the few leading psychologists interested in the inner world of their clients.
Balancing analytical and experiential approaches
I am trained in both experimental and quantitative (ie, analytical) psychology. I loved that approach (and still do), but I never lost my interest in the fascinating and dimly lit world. intersubjectivity. One of the last oral exams I took in Germany was Rogers’ (1969) views. education. Years later, Teresa DiDonato did her dissertation research on some of Rogerian’s ideas. romantic love and relationships. I had the pleasure of serving as Teresa’s mentor and co-author (DiDonato & Krueger, 2010). I also gained some experience psychotherapy and made the concept of compassion central to our efforts self regulation. There is a large literature on compassion and how it works (Kirby, 2025), but none of it can replace his experience. Indeed, experience and understanding of that experience are essential to the emergence of emotional benefits.
Compassion depends more on understanding than explanation. However, it should not be assumed that the concept of compassion completely covers the concept of understanding. Compassion is a subtype of understanding because it focuses on the relief of suffering and distress. any mental content is mostly open to understanding. Both concepts are distinct from judgment. If judgment were added to compassion or understanding, it would diminish the value of these achievements. This poses a complex problem. We can, for example, try to explain the behavior of Hermann Goring, Hitler’s deputy, but what should our thinking be when we seek to understand him, and if we can (Krueger, 2026)?
It requires understanding to gain perspectiveand the other person’s point of view that we try to get can be full of egocentrism and self-preservation; it may even contain hateful thoughts. When this kind of content comes out, how can we not judge or at least judge the person?
Rogers supported this attitude unconditional positive regard regardless of what repulsive material may arise when meeting another. Students, when we first heard this, we reacted with disbelief and sarcasm. We didn’t see a way out dead end. After reflection, the best thing we can do is suspend or suspend judgment as we seek to understand. Later, if the context changes, these constraints can be removed and we can judge. A person who has studied Goring closely and understands him can finally insist. punishment. Such a shift would not be irrational or self-contradictory if the perpetrator’s evaluator remembers victims who deserve understanding.
Understanding why is not important in psychology
Current psychology largely ignores the goal of understanding because of the difficulties of quantification, replication, and manipulation that are valued in analytic research. The concept of “subjectivity” is met with indifference, perhaps even contempt. If one scientist says to another, “That’s just like your idea, man!” says (As “Dude” says to his bowling opponent The Big Lebowski), which is certainly taken as an epistemological positing.
Another reason for the loss of the role of understanding is the displeasure and even fear of polluting one’s own mind when studying another person’s psyche. If so, this is what happens sympathetic magic (Frazer, 1890; Nemeroff and Rozin, 2000). If I were to gain such a high degree of understanding of Hermann Goering’s mind, would I be in danger of becoming a little like him? Analytical psychology suggests that this concern is not unfounded (Meyer et al., 2019; Rubin-McGregor et al., 2022).
Obviously, I have not only advocated for the goal of understanding others, but I have also raised concerns. I cannot explain why; I hope you understand.
